Top 20 Paradoxes in everyday life to think about

71 items ranked

There are some things in life that we take for granted. We never noticed about these things because we never stop to pause and think about them. But if you will take a second look at them, you will know what I mean. Below is the list of 20 things that I had compiled about the things we take for granted.

The sentence contradicts itself. Are you telling the truth that the sentence is false? If so, then it is impossible to tell the truth by stating a false statement, making the statement go on without end. By the way, this said paradox is in Portal 2, a very good and logical videogame. Check it out.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

If this sentence is false , then it means 'this sentence is false ' is false. Therefore this sentence is true that this sentence is false. Therefore this sentence is false.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 8 points

Well of course it is not true because it is true!

Added 1 year ago by guest, -7 points

Well obviously it's true for it's right there.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Come on, people. These ideas of true and false are just illusions created by humans, and humans aren't perfect. Falsity is just the absence of truth, they're not opposites. So basically you ARE lying, because you are saying this: "This sentence is not true" Just agree. That sentence ISN'T true. So it is just a sentence that doesn't have to make sense. BTW this does not help your life, so who cares.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

That's true that this sentence is false, if you say another false sentence after it. For example:
This sentence is false.
Madrid is the capital of England.
It makes both sentences false.
(Correction:
The next sentence is false.
Madrid isn't the capital of England.
Now they're both true.)

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

"True ill go true I think I did a good job" Quoit from Wheatly

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

yes because there is no period.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 15 points

This sentence is not false but it's false if you think it is false

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

The sentence can not be a lie because i see it and it exists

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Hehe so confusing
The sentence below is true
The sentence above is false
0_0

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Portal 2 much?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 10 points

it's truely false i guess.....

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

The statement is without context and therefor is neither true nor false

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Both sentences are true. If that sentence was false, and the next claims that it was true, means that the first sentence is false while the next is true. This is not a paradox, but instead 2 sentences confirming each other. The true paradox would be, "The following sentence is false, the previous statement is true" THEN that would mean that if the next sentence is false, then the previous statement is false, meaning that the first statement would actually change due to the fact it is false to "The following statement is true, the previous statement is false" THEN AGAIN that would mean that the next statement was true meaning the first one was false, meaning that the second one is false bringing the sentence back to "The following statement is false, the previous statement is true" Therefore, this paradox is an eternal continuum that will never end due to the fact that both sentences will NEVER co-exist with each other. Confusing, wouldn't you say?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

"This sentence is false.
The previous sentence is true."
There is the real paradox.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

It's a paradox there is no answer. ( quote from Glados)

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

By quoting Wheatley true.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

SOLUTION: Then it is True and False in certain times depending on the reader.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

This paradox incomplete.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

Just becuase the sentence says it is false that doesn't logically mean that it cannot be true that it is false. The sentence can be true and false in that it is true that the sentence is false.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

Uh, true... I'll go true. Well, that was easy. I'll be honest , I might have heard that before, though, sort of cheated.﻿

Added 4 years ago by guest, 19 points

well if the sentence is true that would impy that it was false. then if it was false the sentence would be telling the truth, making if false...

Added 4 years ago by guest, 4 points

How is this a paradox? There is nothing inherently truthful or false about it. Is there? Can somebody explain?

Added 4 years ago by guest, -16 points

No it isn't

Added 4 years ago by guest, -16 points

Yes it is.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -13 points

2.

If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?

92 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 33 comments

Comments:

it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, it is impossible to gain more than maximum entropy so yes it is possible for something to be impossible

Added 9 months ago by guest, 5 points

WOW Blew my mind

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

the fact that everything is possible, as stated by God, implies that something must be impossible unless God decided to bend the rule and truly make it in his will. This means that, Yes, its possible for something to be impossible, but the fact remains that impossibility can be tweaked.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

if everything is possible then that means impossible is possible

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

Everything is possible except impossibility

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

No, but yes, but no, but yes, but no, but yes...

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

yea u just proved it. impossibility is possible. impossibility is a part of everything, isnt it?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

possible is impossible and vice versa

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

if it's possible, it means that something can be impossible so not everything can be.
If it's impossible, it means that it is impossible for something to be impossible.''Impossibility'' is therefore impossible so something is impossible i fact. Thus the answer has to be no.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

No, nothing's impossible, but some things are Unfathomable if that makes any sense. Us as humans can't fathom the idea of not being able to do something someway. Even if it requires a loop hole, there is always a way to do something, maybe not traditionally, but it will be done.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

The answer can mean anything, this is a paradox that makes you wonder. But the closest answer you would get is no, for you can't achieve all possibilities.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Very interesting paradox, the answer is simple, yes it is possible for something to be impossible.
It is impossible for something to be impossible, thus leaving everything possible.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 12 points

if its possible to be impossible nothing possible

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

yes because not everything is possible

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

No, because everything refers to a positive term- impossibility is negative. It doesn't fall under the same category because it is not something that exists; it just is. Everything only incorporates existing things.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

everything is impossible until you make it possible

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

this is impossible... XD

Added 2 years ago by guest, -7 points

No the only thing impossible is impossibility itself.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

If everything is possible, then that means impossibility, the state of which something is not able to occur, exist or be done, is possible. However, if impossibility does exist due to everything being possible, then the paradox occurs. This suggests that the possibility that everything is possible is infact impossible. However, that is the only impossibility that exists, a paradox occurring and being able to continue. This implies other than infinite possibility, everything is possible, just highly unlikely.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

yessince everything is possible then by cant anything be impossible

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

Possibly

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

This is a non-sensical question, meaning that the first part of the sentence is untrue therefor deserves no answer. example.. it is not true that everything is possible.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

No, because imposible is only a word. If anything was possible the words possible and impossible wouldn't exist/have definitions. So it everything would not be possible or impossible.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

Yes, firstly, they tell you everything is possible, if they were lying, then it is still possible. So it is your choice whether to believe them or not. Of course, if everything was possible, I will just be sitting around for someone to make a potion that lets me beat up superman

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

Here is one i know..
The following sentence is false. The previous sentence is true.
O.o this one really confused me..

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

If I hate haters does that make me a hater.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 16 points

By reading and thinking about the word "possible" so many times... It sounds so strange to me now.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

SOLUTION: It is possible and impossible for everything to be impossible and possible at the same time.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

If its impossible to be impossible then it's possible to be impossible,by being impossible to be impossible,But it's impossible to be impossible because it's impossible for something impossible to be possible. This is illogical because something specific has to be there to have "possible" or "impossible" attached to it. So that sentence is impossible. No, illogical. Just can't happen.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 5 points

Not everything is possible though.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -3 points

gone mad

Added 5 years ago by guest, -12 points

that just blew my mind

Added 5 years ago by guest, 8 points

3.

What happens if Pinocchio says "my nose will now grow"?

Because it is actually a paradox.

50 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 49 comments

Comments:

Well, this could be after Pinnochio beccame a boy and then his nose technically would be growing as a human being.

Added 26 days ago by guest, 1 point

it just will grow only after now is over because it didn't grow

Added 10 months ago by guest, 3 points

This isn't really a paradox. What people often forget about Pinocchio is that his nose will grow if and only if he tells a conscious lie. If he's holds a box, shakes it and says "there's a book inside this box", his nose won't grow if there isn't a book in there, because he actually didn't lie as he didn't know the content of the box (and he didn't say that he knew, or even assumed that). His nose is a lie detector, not a fact checker: even if he says something that isn't right, that doesn't make his nose automatically grow. So if he says "my nose will now grow" it won't grow, since he has no control over his nose's growth, and won't grow afterwards, because what Pinocchio say wasn't either true or false, it was a misstated information at best.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 3 points

His nose will keep changing rapidly in size, and women will go crazy.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

Now doesn't mean possibly in the future, it means now.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The statement is missing something in order to be a paradox. For all we know Pinocchio could be talking about something in the future which would likely make him tell the truth. Does this mean Pinocchio can tell the future?

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

If Pinocchio says his nose will grow, then he will tell a lie, therefore telling the truth and making sure that the nose doesn't grow by telling the truth. In this fact, it remains a mystery, riddle, and above all, paradox because it contradicts itself.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Then his nose won't grow, so his nose will grow because he lied, but since his nose grew, he told the truth. Why did his nose grow if he told the truth?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

His nose won't grow. Its like if he was playing craps and he said " I will roll a 7 "
It's an unknown prediction.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

His nose will be constantly growing and shooting back into his head

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

Well, the answer is that Pinocchios nose will not grow because he is not telling a lie if he really believes that it will grow. If he believes that his nose will grow then he is not lying, even though his nose did NOT grow. Pinocchios nose only grows if he knows the truth but tells a lie. Therefore the answer to this so called "paradox" is that nothing will happen to Pinocchio or his nose nor anything else around him

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

Good bye world

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Bye Bye,universe

Added 1 year ago by guest, -6 points

He would be lying cause his nose can't grow if he commands it to ,then it will grow but then he would be telling the truth so it won't grow but hen he would be telling a lie so it will grow(ect.)

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

The universe destroys itself.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

His head will fall off

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

His head will explode, killing everyone in a two mile radius.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

All of you are wrong. Since Pinocchio has genuine belief that it will grow, the fact that it WON'T will be because he does not know that it will not grow, since he believes he is telling the truth.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 9 points

If he says my nose will grow, then he's basically lieing because it didn't grow, but his nose grows when he lies thus his nose will grow and he's also telling the truth, and his nose is growing for telling the truth which was also a lie

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

This is simply another iteration of the liar paradox.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

His head would explode

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

well it wont grow because he isn't lying......and according to the legend Pinocchio's nose grow when he is in fact lying........

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

If Pinocchio says "My nose will grow now" it will not grow at that exact moment, which means he's lying, therefor it will grow. But since it grows it means he told the truth, which means that his nose grew when he told the truth.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Simple, if he says "My nose will grow now" he is lying. His nose would not grow the exact moment he finished the word "now". Now means at the exact moment, but again it wont grow at the exact moment so he is lying thus it will grow and he was not telling the truth.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

stuffz

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

his head will explode

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

It throbs

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

The universe will explode says another website.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

His nose won't grow he is a real boy now...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

His nose will grow then shrink then grow and shrink and the process will continue forever

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

His nose does grow immediately ('now') it grows a second after telling that lie!

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

if he says "my nose will now grow" he is lying because he knows it won't grow just by saying the words, and since he knows it won't happen and he's saying it is, his nose will grow because it is a lie.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

Okay, first off, Pinocchio's nose only grows when he lies. When he says "My nose will now grow", and his nose does grow, that would mean that he just told the truth, making it impossible for his nose to grow. Yet if Pinocchio told the truth, that would make the sentence "My nose will now grow" true, indicating that his nose must grow, yet he never lied, so his nose cannot grow at the same time that it must. That is why this is a paradox. At the same time his nose must grow, his nose cannot grow. Interesting, eh?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

If he says it will grow and it does, that means he told the truth, but if he tells the truth that means it will not grow, but that means he lied and so it will grow, but he told the truth again and it..
WTF

Added 3 years ago by DoubleATeam, 0 points

every day pinocchio's nose will be growing, however slowly since he is in his growing stage (adolescent). Therefore, nothing will happen.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

when he tells the truth, it won't happen, but if he lies it will happen (only with the nose of course). so if he does say it, it won't happen, but if it doesn't happen, than that would make it a lie, thus making his nose grow, but that would then make his first comment true, so it wouldn't grow. it's like an infinite line. there is no true answer to this.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

I think pinocchio's will fall off and he will explode

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Or, the he will be telling the truth becouse the next time he lies his nose will grow.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

it will grow, because language is performative.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -6 points

SOLUTION: Pinocchio's nose won't grow because he isn't lying, he's just merely guessing or assuming. He doesn't have the ability to see the future thus making it impossible for him to tell what isn't or what's going to happen.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points

The actual answer is,
He will turn into a real boy

Added 3 years ago by guest, 6 points

Pinocchio's nose grows when he's lying, we have no conclusive evidence that it only grows when he's lying. Initially, his nose will not grow and that will make his statement false, which will make his nose grow. Now that his statement is true, his nose will still grow because the truth doesn't necessarilly stop it from growing

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

is it possible for his nose to grow without lying?

Added 4 years ago by guest, -7 points

Easy, Pinocchio will become a black hole.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 29 points

Any situation where a person says an action will happen now, is always lying.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -6 points

why we gotta do the math? :(

Added 4 years ago by guest, -7 points

Only what Pinocchio truly feels will happen, he can say anything but he may not mean it in his head; that will determine what happens to his nose.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 3 points

its like an infinite loop. if his statement is true that his nose will now grow, he will be lying. but then his nose grew making his statement true. BUT! his nose only grows when hes telling lies so the second statement is cancelled making it false therefor making him lie in the 3rd statement.. and so on and so on :)
lovely paradox

Added 5 years ago by guest, 11 points

best one on the list, the only real paradox

Added 5 years ago by guest, -7 points

4.

New time paradox

You create a time machine and go back in time and go back to when you go back in time and go back in time with yourself and so forth. What will happen infinet yous?

49 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 14 comments

Comments:

well not infinet but it wil be graduly older versions of you till the moment that you ain't possible to go back in time because of elderdom sickneses or death

Added 10 months ago by guest, -1 points

If you go back in time and by by chance run into yourself all you have to do is temporarily inccapacitate your previous self and while he/she is in REM sleep say some illogical things, leave a warning note in the time machine, and kill your present self to immediatly correct the timeline. The past you will grow into the future you, see the note on the time machine, and avoid the general area where the previous future you met the past you. Pradox broken.

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

The universe implodes

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

The infinite number of yous would make more time travel themselves because theyre your duplicate and mimic everything you do unless you make there be a good, bad, ugly, and same category for your duplicates. therefore, without technology to make a moderator for G, B, U, and S into duplicates, there cant be an infinite because its untold if someone might stop the duplicates.

I won't be infinite me...becuz when i go back in time ...then at that instant the past me would also have departed back into time and so on....

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

for that to be possible there would already be infinite yous as well as infinite instances where you could be. the answer is infinity squared. but is infinity possible and if it is can it squared? is anything possible? abstract thinking can lead to concrete solutions and vice-versa. or can it?

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

Actually it's the bootstrap paradox

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

There is a good movie about this. Predestination.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

The there will become a earth filled with yous

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

You will be stuck for infinity (don't try this at home).

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Try this, your walking around and meet a future version of yourself telling you to travel back in time. You do and end up telling a younger version of yourself to do the same thing. But whose idea was it really?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

That is a really funny take on a well-known paradox (grandfather paradox).

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

5.

if you were all powerfull and can do anything,could you create a door you couldn't open?

it is unanswerable

35 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 47 comments

Comments:

if, "If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?" is Super Mario Galaxy then this is Super Mario Galaxy 2.

Added 1 month ago by guest, 0 points

Imagine if you tell prowl from transformers paradoxes

Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points

yeah only you would have the power to undo those powers of the door so he would be able to open it

Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point

Being all powerful means that, within the realm of universal and infinite possibilities, you can do what you want. A door that can't be opened means that no amount of force exerted on it can cause it to open: thus, you'd need a door with infinite mass, which is physically and mathematically impossible. So even though you're all powerful, you can't bend these sets of rules. It is simply impossible for such an object to exist (after all, how would the door keep gathering mass ad infinitum? It's not only impossible but illogical, which no amount of omnipotence could solve).

Added 11 months ago by guest, 0 points

I would explode, logic is incorrect

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

If you could create said door, then it wouldn't be considered as a door, seeing as it comes impossible to open, even if you could do anything. If you COULD open a door like this, then you would have the ability to open walls, floors, and even another door, which may become a paradox unto itself since you could create a door of a door of a door of a door, etc.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

if I create a door which doesn't open then the thing does not consider as door

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

If you could do anything, then why not just smash the door down

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

I would create a key that could open the door.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

couldn't you just move the universe around the door to open it?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Why would you do this? O.o

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

Well, i would just create it , and then call another powerfull man who can do everything, and i would tell him to open since i can't.EASY.But the worst thing is that i would have to call my neighboor every time i needed to open the door.LAME

Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points

Ah but if you could not open the door as a human then that would be something you couldn't do then you aren't all powerful and cant do everything

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Let us say you can do anything. So let us say you make a huge stone door and then turn yourself physcally into a human.
You then can not open the door because you are to weak but at the same time you can.
This paradox is more so a play on words not taking into consideration what you can and can and can not do for the time.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Well, if I'm all powerful, then I could open anything except nothing, and nothing is outside the universe, so no, I can't

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Better question; why would i need such a door?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

The question doesnt even begin. God created the idea of a "door" and "opening a door", the ideas of "possible" and "impossible" and thus the question asserts human characteristics to God. Therefore the question is null.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

define what a door is then you cant make what cant be opened and call it a door

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Yeah, he just would make a clone of himself open it. It just said I wouldn't be able to open it. Cha-ching! Problem solved.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

No because creating a door that couldn't open is not infinite power. It means your power is not able to do something.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

you shouldn't be able to open the unopenable door, well unless you change your ming about it being unopenable

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

This is an omnipotence paradoxe, if it say "do anything", but says "make a door you couldn't open" thus this is something you cannot do and thus you cannot do "anything"

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

I WOULD GO BACK IN TIME AND STOP MY SELF FROM MAKING THE DOOOOOORRRR

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

Well, if you say that you are all powerful and can do absolutely anything, then you should be able to create a door that you cannot open. But, if you can do anything, you CAN open that door, therefore, you did not create a door that you cannot open. If you cannot create a door that you cannot open, you would not be able to do anything.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I'm omnipotent! I can lift it up even if it's illogical. I can do whatever I want.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

no and yes because you cant be that powerful also you cant be that stupid to not be able to open a door

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

I suppose

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

What, to you, does the word anything mean? To me it meaning you can surpass the possible. If so, then if this person creates a door the he can't open than, since he can do 'anything,' than he should be able to open it, even if he made it so he can't. If he wanted to, he could surpass even his own power.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

if the door couldn't be opened then it means that it has infinite inertia of rest which would mean as having an infinite mass but there cannot be an infinite mass in this finite universe! so there isn't any door that couldn't be opened.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Create a door without a handle,put it in a wall.its simply a door that does not have a opening function,doesnt mean its not a door.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -6 points

The statement never said that you could never open it ,it is almost like a locked door you can't open it until you unlock the door. So being able to do anything you could also make it so you can open it again. Therefore this is impossible.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points

you create a door impossible to open to anything but you, then erase your power, making yourself a normal human being, and then bam, you've therefore easily made a door you can't open.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

Yes... But not in the physical sense. I would have to create it with out knowing.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

well, if you were all powerful, and you created a door that you could not open, then you created another being that could open the door, than you would no longer be the all powerful one. the other being would have the capability that you would not have. so, it's like a paradox within a paradox.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

what if you created a person who can open the door you can't open, so indirectly you had opened it? So you yourself can't open it but you can cause a different force you had made to open it, therefore you have opened it-- if you wanted to make a door you can't open in the first place.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

What if the door is invisible?

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

I just wouldn't

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

SOLUTION: Yes. And because I am all powerful, I can create a door I could and could not open at the same time.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points

its a paradox because if you could, then you wouldnt be allmighty. but if you couldnt, you arent allmighty in the first place because you cant make the door.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -7 points

Yes, I could. But then i wouldn't be allmighty, so I wouldn't do that. I don't get the paradox...

Added 4 years ago by guest, -5 points

dood if i was all powerfull i would not do something like that >:) i would do wwwwaaaayyyy more stuff :D not make a door that would just screw me over

Added 4 years ago by guest, 4 points

The ability to do anything does not preclude self limitation. If it did, then someone who could do anything would always be doing everything, an obvious absurdity. As such, to create self limitations is not a violation.
Lets say I am all powerfull.
I create a door I cannot open.
That is not to say I could not cause the door to open. Just simply that I cannot myself immediately open the door.
Possible explenations?

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

A wall?

Added 5 years ago by guest, -8 points

How do you know I want to open the door?

Added 5 years ago by guest, 2 points

if you could do anything then it would have to possible to create a door that you couldn't open. That much has to be true. The question is whether you could get that door opened and then does that refute the fact you can't make an unopenable door. The easy way is to combine the two statements. Could you create a door that you couldn't open but then later open when you wanted? if this is the case then yes you could create a door that couldn't be open because at a later time being all powerful would allow you to render the door opened.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -9 points

several weeks ago i came onto this page and clearly pointed out how each and every single one of these points was written by a moron. they have been mostly deleted.
You seem clearly ashamed of how unintelligent you have proven to be.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -15 points

...taken directly from the favorite paradoxes of the atheists: If God is ever-so powerful, can He create a rock big enough so He couldn't lift it....

Added 6 years ago by guest, -2 points

6.

a man says," don't trust me, don't trust anyone"

28 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 7 comments

Comments:

Trust no one!
(X-files reference anyone?)

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

Trust everyone else then

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

I'd ignore him and walk away

Added 1 year ago by guest, 9 points

Don't trust him.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

If he says "don't trust anyone" your basically trusting him to nay trust him or anyone. A.K.A the Liar Paradox

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

i will trust him before he says it but not trust him after he says it but i bare in mind the previously he was true

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I just won't trust him and trust everyone.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -7 points

7.

If sometime to come a time machine is invented and they came back to the past, wouldn't the past have a time machine too.

This may prove that the time machine was never and will never be invented.

28 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 21 comments

Comments:

Yes, the universe creates the time machine, someone goes back in time and gives the time machine to someone else, they wait then give it to the person who gave it to you's past self, and they go back in time and give it to you.

Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point

You can only go back so far as the time machine was invented, so there is still hope that time travel will be possible in the future

Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point

there would be a time machine because you can only go back as far as the time machine excisted

Added 9 months ago by guest, 0 points

yeah but it is still invented in the future and so it would still be a machine from the future this is just thinking on the wrong way because it isn't that they invented time machines earlier

Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point

Wha?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

Use a T.A.R.D.I.S., it apparently fixes everything the Doctor seems to screw up.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

no because the future couldnt have happend yet

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

According to Brian Cox, it is very possible to create a time machine, but you could only ever travel to the future and you wouldn't be able to come back. Therefore, no the past would never get a time machine until the day it is invented.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

This depends on if the time machine "SENT" them to the past of "TOOK" them to the past. ;-)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Not if they didn't know how it worked.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

I actually think that would be a way to get a time machine without inventing one.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

A time machine will only be able to travel back in time if it can break the speed of light and exit the space-time limit, called the light cone. All of that is technically impossible however some theories about the distortion of space and light speed in and around black holes could lead to travel in to the past.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Time machines will only be able to ravel forward in time or slow it down because you can't recreate time

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The past would have a time machine, but the time machine was not invented in that moment but the past would still have a time machine in that time frame.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

At first, let assume that you can only travel to the time when the time machine was invented so then your assumption could be false. Now, let assume that you can alter the reality by time traveling so if you create a paradox (like killing your parents before you were born or killing yourself when you meet yourself in the past) then you create a bifurcation in spacetime with two alternate realities. So in one reality you were never born and it means you wouldn't be able to exist in the first place and it means that after the act of killing the people that were your parents in another reality this alternate reality would cease to exist with you as a time traveler.
In another reality it would seem like you've never traveled in time because of complications (quantum fluctuations would be strong enough to prevent you to cross your own time line). Even the simple act that you appeared in the past would alter the reality. To send back in time just a little grain of sand with mass of about 10^(-8)kg means that you would need to borrow energy that this mass contains from the current time and send it back to previous time and the bifurcation with such a big inequality in energy conservation would be able to exist only for a Planck time (10^(-43) s).
Conclusion: Either way, time machine is in fact really impossible (except for universes that satisfy the Gödel solution with closed timelike curves but this is very artificial solution).

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

I don't know, let's ask The Doctor.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 14 points

yes the past would have one too but time travel still might be possible. you would hide the machine so no one sees it and even if the pass has one it does mean it is possible for time travel then

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

time travel doesn't work like that. think of time as an arrow. then, you travel outside of the spacetime continum, and land on a farther back portion of the arrow. it's kinda like that.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

This is actually a very clever paradox.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

Plain and simply, you would only be able to travel back to the time the time machine was first invented.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

what if by then we transfer to an alternate universe and then we will never know???

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

8.

the sentence after this is true, the sentence before this is false, the sentence before this is true

my mind exploded

26 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 16 comments

Comments:

Lots of people have pointed out that there is only one sentence. Although if it were "The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false. The sentence before this is true." it would still not be a paradox as there is nothing contradicting the 3rd sentence. The third sentence says that the 2nd is true, so, that means that when the 2nd sentence say "The sentence before this is false", it is correct, therefore when the 1st sentence says that the 2nd is false, it is incorrect, because the 3rd says it is true. Boom

Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point

my 8 year old brother came up to me just to say that this is only 1 sentence...

Added 1 year ago by guest, 9 points

It's just like your saying lord rama is a lady and then saying aishwarya bachan is a man.
It won't be a paradox

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

If you sure smart enough, you would have noticed that there is only 1 sentence

Added 1 year ago by guest, 9 points

AHA! TRICK QUESTION!!! This is only one sentence!!!!

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

Well considering there is a comma in between there and the fact that there is only one peiod at the end, it is only one sentance because it is commas. So i cat answer this question truthfully, can i?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

hey the last part of your sentence confirmed the second part.
the first sentence is false.
the second sentence is true.
the third sentence is true.
besides falseness is an illusion of the human mind, and cannot be described as false anyway.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Thanks you just killed me?!?!?!?!

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

this is only one sentence :D

Added 2 years ago by guest, 11 points

Hopefully it didn't, because the sentence is there, true.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

This paradox can't be solved, because there aren't three sentences. The author has just compiled three main clauses, punctuated by commas, which is grammatically and, regarding punctuation, incorrect.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

That makes sense if you work backwards.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

This is known as a card paradox, this guy originated off of "this sentence is false", but if the sentence is false the that would make it true, bur if it were true then the sentence must be false, but if it was false then is it's true that it's false and that makes it true to be false, and thus the cycle of this continues

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

It's one sentence. No full stops. Not even capital letters! But still, one sentence; Commas are not used at the end of a sentence.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

It's all just one sentence

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

Actually, you didn't capitalize or put a period so technically it's all one sentence...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

9.

what happens when an imoveable object is meets an unstopable force

not the best paradoz but still

26 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 67 comments

Comments:

The unstoppable force will turn to the side, simple. It never said "an unstoppable, unturnable force" did it?

Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point

A dent in the immovable object

Added 4 months ago by guest, 0 points

the unstoppable force makes the object imoveable

Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point

They'll pass through or around each other. Most likely the unstoppable force will slide by the object's side and move on.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 0 points

Who can say that the unstoppable force is a solid or liquid? it could be a plasma or something. it may just go right thru the object without harming it

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

the unstoppable force will (A) collide with the object and smash it to pieces cuz the object technically didn't move, or (B) the unstoppable force will ram into it and the two things will stay glued and unmoving for eternity or (C) the force disintegrates the object or (D) the force will jump over the object or finally (E) the universe will hurl its insides out

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

My dick is an unstopable force

Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points

nothing

Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points

plumz

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

There is no such thing as an immovable object, neither an unstoppable force

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

In a finite universe such an occurrence is impossible as the immovable object must have inertia. This also means that the object must have infinite mass; at this point it will collapse into singularity creating this paradox moot!

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

It took me awhile to figure out but here's what I got: 1) the unstoppable force ricochets off of the immovable object, or 2) (this one making less sense) the unstoppable force shatters the immovable object because technically the object isn't moving, but shattering

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

the universe will explode

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The force will be stopped and the object will be moved. It is said that they cannot exist at the same time, anyway.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

They reach a state of equilibrium between the 2 forces

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

They cancel each other out.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

surrender

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Well, it depends on what you mean, but since you can't change their state in motion, they would pass through each other.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Batman and Joker.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

They wind up in marriage counseling.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 15 points

If you think about it (just neglect the impossibility of them to exist) an "unstoppable object" is actually also an" irresistible force " they are the same thing in respect that if something could resist it it would in fact be stoppable , given that do the math of what will happen if two equal in any way objects will meet instead ? They will either explode or simply stop ,in which case it is not a paradox at all ,an object cannot be more powerful that himself and that doesn't make it a weakness (which btw is also an answer to the omnipotent paradox :)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

BANG! Yup :)

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

It is impossible for both to co-exist in the same universe. They would both have infinite inertia and infinite mass also to be immoveable or unstoppable. so there would be a tear in the space-time continuum.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

just like lebron james meets paul geroge lol

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Well, let's define the terms shall we? In order for there to be such a thing as an immoveable object, the object would have to have infinite inertia, meaning infinite mass, and nothing in the universe has infinite mass. In order for there to be an unstoppable force, it would require an infinite amount of energy, which does not exist in a universe (our universe) with a limited amount of energy.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

IT GOES THROUGH IT

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Same as below but the unstpible force remaneas.Porpisly spelled wrong for the win

Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points

the universe explodes

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

there cannot be any immovable object neither any unstoppable force, and hence this question dosent arise !! :D

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

I watched the superbowl between the broncos and seahawks, this one doesnt fool me. The immovable object wins.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

The unstoppable force changes direction

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

Watch ASAPScience on youtube and it will tell you that they pass through eachother.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

They surrender

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

They will pass right through each other
Minutephysics did a video on this that's worth watching

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

big bang? =O

Added 2 years ago by guest, -5 points

ok. This statement does not state that the imoveable object is also indestructible so therefore it would be obliterated or.. the unstoppable force would simply go around it as the statement also doesnt say that the unstoppable force is on a direct path were it cannot divert from it.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

A human can drink water. However, give it too much and he/she will drown. Between that there is a balance, a boundary between how much they can and can't drink. This is like this. If I a pushed against a wall, it's likely the wall wouldn't fall over, because there is so much force it can take. I do not bounce of the wall, as the force the wall exerts back is equal to what I exert and therefore I would only bounce off if the force I exerted was more than I could exert, paradox. So let's apply this to the question. Infinity = infinity, and always will. So an immovable object meets the unstoppable force, they are equal. Now like before, as the forces are equal, the unstoppable force wouldn't bounce back. Now some may propose the unstoppable force may almost diffuse, like wind would if wind shear occurred, but that can't happen, because the forces are equal. This all means that infact the unstoppable force would have to stop. Why? The paradox has nothing to do with the immovable object but the unstoppable force. A paradox is something which is impossible (can not it exist, occur or be done) due to things that can't co-exist. This means an unstoppable force is a paradox because an unstoppable force couldn't co-exist with other unstoppable forces, as they would just be incredibly powerful but stoppable forces. Immovable objects can exist, as they couldn't defeat themselves. They can't do anything to the other. This means the the question above is not a paradox, it contains a paradox, but it's invalid.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

They surrender.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

The problem with an immovable object is that its unspecified which frame of reference it is being observed from, because if you were to fly by it, then it is moving relative to you and therefore it no longer immovable

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

BOOM!

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

the Big Bang

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

To have an un movable object it would have to have infinite inertia and that would require infinite mass which can not exist in a universe that is finite.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

don't you think a black hole would form since mass is going to be pushed and crushed against each other with great force? Correct me if im wrong

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Acording to me there's two answers first answer theyre atoms will pass thru each other second answer if one exists the other can not exist in the same universe

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Nothing if one exists the other doesn't exist.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

The force would go through the object or destroy it.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

Say that an immovable object and an unstoppable force actually could coexist in the same universe as you and I, the immovable object being an infinite source of mass and velocity and the unstoppable force being a converted mass of love or other strong emotion. Since the objects cannot decelerate and they are maintaining a constant movement through space and time, It would be impossible for the objects to touch, since (as stated above) the masses cannot decelerate; they pass through each other.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

well it is false. both couldn't exist, if there was an immovable object then there couldn't be an unstoppable force. to have one means you could not have the other simple as that.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

an immovable object would mean that the object has infinite mass, which is impossible. an unstoppable force would have to have infinite delta V which requires infinite energy, which the universe does not have. so it is impossible, even for a hypothetical.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

the unstoppable force becomes the immovable force and vise versa

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

I learned it from asapscience on youtube, they will pass thru each other

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

The particles will pass through eachother
#Physics.
#Biology

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

*change *force immovable

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

Actually, both an unstoppable force and an immovable object can both be described as things with no chang in velocity, so, theoretically, they can be the same thing, and, thus, the unstoppable force could transfer the energy required to be "unstoppable" to the immovable object giving the appearance of "phasing through" the immovable object, rendering the once unstoppable forac eimmovable until another unstoppable force transfers its energy to it.

SOLUTION: The existence of an immovable object means there isn't an unstoppable force and VICE VERSA.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

All physics aside...speaking in theory...they would enilate each other..it is analgous to matter and anti.matter.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

The unstoppable force will pass through the imovableobject without effect to the object... like a ghost

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

easy:
if there is a unstoppable force an immovable object cannot exist

Added 4 years ago by guest, 2 points

Easy: The unstoppable force stops and the immoveable object moves

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

To the person who posted that infinite mass is impossible ... we can't actually say that for sure. Black holes are said to contain infinite mass, due to their heavy gravitational pull on anything that goes near them. Another reason is that light can't exit a black hole, and therefore there would have to be something infinitely large to attract something like light itself.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

Basically, space-time won't allow it, so the universe rips itself apart and we all are obliterated into elementary particles that were created in the big bang, and gravity pulls all of it back to the center into a pinpoint location that is heated beyond comparison. Then the universe is created again!

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

first of all there is nothing such as immovable object....f=ma hence finite amount of force always causes finite acceleration. a body cannot exist in universe when it has infinite mass....it will simply collapse itself into nothing...............also it is now known that the universe is finite. so infinite force also doesnt exist

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

What happens when Chuck Norris meets Bruce Lee?
That's really what their asking

Added 4 years ago by guest, 18 points

Had this one before, the unstoppable force has no rule against being reflected and changing direction, it is still unstoppable with a new trajectory.
The other outcome, it simply goes through each other.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 2 points

woops i ment paradox not paradoz

Added 5 years ago by guest, 2 points

10.

The time travel paradox

If you hypothetically traveled back in time, can you kill your grandfather as a child? If so, then you'd never been born. But if you were never born, then who traveled back in time to kill your grandfather to begin with? And if you didn't go back in time to kill your grandfather because you were never born, then you'd be born. Can you hypothetically go back in time to kill your grandfather now? [Parallel Universes?]

25 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 20 comments

Comments:

Time is a straight and cannot be changed in any way, shape or form. Similar to what the comment below says, but, everything you will/have tried to do to kill your grandparent will have already failed because time cannot be changed.

Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point

You would always fail at killing them, because some believe that time has a self healing quality, making you unsuccessful every time you try. For example, if you were trying to go back in time to save someone from dying, they will always manage to die somehow, because time works like that. Or, maybe you couldn't go back and kill them because time machines weren't invented then, and you can only travel as far back as when the time machine was built. Or, it would make the universe implode.

Added 8 months ago by guest, 2 points

It would create an eternal time loop

Added 10 months ago by guest, 1 point

And thats why travelling back in time is impossible

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

refer to the self consistency principle to answer this "paradox"

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

ACTUALLY THINK I DID IT THIS TIME!
It will create a new time line, when you weren't born, and a timeline where every is fine, and it didn't happen. The only question is, in which time line will you be?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

A paradox happens-Logical Troll

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

You wouldn't be able to kill your grandfather no matter how hard you tried, as is the law of time

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Well, time will somehow stop you, like depleting the bullets in your gun, or getting you into an accident in the past.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

You couldn't go back farther than when the time machine was created.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The real question here is: Why are you killing your grandfather?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 20 points

The problem is that when you time travel, it hasn't happened before, but it's already happened, and you theoretically travel into a parallel universe (well, actually, you might have never existed.)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

also known as the grandfather paradox, the power of the universe will always somehow stop you from killing your grandfather, (losing him) or something like that.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

You can't go back in time, changing the most smallest thing could have a big affect in the future

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

A parallel universe where you had never been born would be created. When you went back to the future (present?), nothing would have changed because you would still be in the original universe where your grandfather had never died.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

The universe is destroyed... Or maybe that family is eliminated from existence. No more Jenkinson family, peeps...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

This paradox breaks one rule of time: when time travelers go into the past, what they do, always happened. So it would be impossible to kill your grandfather before his wife was pregnant, and impossible to kill his wife before she had the baby. So that means something, ANYTHING will stop you from killing your grandfather. you can kill anybody ells, as long it's not your grandfather or grandmother.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

This is my explanation for basically every time-travel-affecting-the-future/present scenario:
Every time a person travels backwards or forwards in time, they create a new reality. If Marty goes back in time, the original reality to which we are introduced continues from the exact moment as if he had not. The time to which he goes in the past is a new reality, and when time in that reality reaches the time of the beginning of the movie (before any time travel), that is the development of the second, slightly different reality. When he travels back to the time at which the movie began, he creates a third reality that is different still from the other two. This leaves us with three realities: the reality that involves no time travel whatsoever, the reality that involves Marty staying in the past and aging alongside his parents, and a reality that involves Marty rejoining the developed form of the second reality, only as a younger person who was not involved in the development of the second reality.
And "boom" goes the dynamite.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

just kill grandma after childbirth of childs parents ez

Added 3 years ago by guest, -9 points

If time is a fourth dimension, then you must be theoretically able to travel back in time and interact with the other three dimensions. This implies that you, in fact, can kill your grandfather as a child. This suggests the existence of parallel universes, an infinite number of them for that matter. This way you never altered the universe you traveled from, but another parallel universe, which will branch out to create a different history.
Another solution to this paradox is that (after killing your grandfather) every time you traveled back to the future at the point in time where you traveled to the past in the first place, you actions in the past will automatically cancel themselves so that the trip back is possible to begin with.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

11.

What is the answer to this question?

There is probably a clever correct answer out there...

19 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 13 comments

Comments:

What

Added 6 months ago by guest, 1 point

The answer to that question is the answer to that question.

Added 8 months ago by guest, 2 points

This is the answer to your question.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 2 points

An answer

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

no. "what" is not the answer to that question.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

Anything. You haven't defined what the answer could be.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

The answare to this question is the answare to this questio. Therfore, the answare to this question is indeed the answare to this question..

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

Waffles!

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

it is not a question

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

What isn't the answer to this question

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

Well nothing is an answer so there is an answer but it's nothing

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Nothing, it is an answerless question.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The answer is dependent on the person answering the question. You asked for the answer, not the correct answer so this is my answer, which is an answer to the question shether it is correct or not.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 7 points

12.

If you make a new years resolution to not keep any new years resolutions would you keep it?

If you made a new years resolution to not keep any new resolutions would you be able to keep it because by not keeping your resolution you are keeping it.

19 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 8 comments

Comments:

Yes. Most of these are not a paradox, only unskewed opinions on our skewed society brought to a common form.

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

no becuse I dont keep new years resolutions :(

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

No because you won't keep any, so not this one, so you pick a different resolution.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

SOLUTION: Start that new year's resolution at 11:59pm on December 31st.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

this is like the Pinocchio paradox. if your resolution is to not keep your resolution then in fact you'd keep it. which would mean you didn't, and so on into adinfintinium

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

SOLUTION: Starting when?? Time is the key to this puzzle.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -6 points

not a paradox it is an impossible thing to do unless you only have 1 new years resolutions

Added 4 years ago by guest, -4 points

Yes, you would, by not keeping any ones that you've made in the past, you be keeping the one you just made. Simple as that.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -6 points

13.

Why do you park in a driveway and drive in a parkway

this is genius

19 points - added 5 years ago by colbydawg14 - 18 comments

Comments:

they're 2 different things the english language just makes the words sound alike

Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point

This is not a paradox, just an oddity of the English language.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 4 points

**** you that's why

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

That's what everybody generally calls them, you don't have to.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Parkway is actually named for roads that went through parks as in places (central park is an example), not for the verb "park"

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Because, the drive way is where you drive to when you go home. You drive the way toward the drive way! :D

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

This is like Iceland and Greenland. They ether got confused, the guy who named them is a troll or the guy who named this stuff is an idiot.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

because people like irony

Added 2 years ago by guest, 9 points

This is not a paradox

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

that's more of a riddle, not a paradox :/

Added 3 years ago by guest, 10 points

''Im gonna park in the driveway'' sounds better than '' im gonna park in the parkway''

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

SOLUTION: Because you do.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

its because an idiot invented those words

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

why do you cook bacon, and bake cookies?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 38 points

Why is cargo stuff carried on a ship, and a shipment something carried by car?

Added 4 years ago by guest, -3 points

What's a parkway?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 7 points

This is a George Carlinism

Added 5 years ago by guest, -4 points

nice

Added 5 years ago by guest, -3 points

14.

Why do we work to enjoy things we don't get to enjoy because we're working to get these things that we'd like to enjoy?

We do enjoy after working .it is not like work is an unending process .

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

Because work is the only way to get stuff because lazy people said so.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Because if we didn't work we couldn't have most things any way

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

ITs life deal with it OK

Added 2 years ago by guest, -8 points

because this is life.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

Because of, for some, the journey is what brings happiness, not the destination, therefore they set a goal, and enjoy the journey towards the goal, where they will feel they're getting better, and therefore closer to the goal, and feeling better is enjoyable, therefore working towards things we enjoy is not nessesarily because we want to get the things, but may be merely because we want to go on that journey
- or, that's what I believe ;)

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

that's not a paradox, just a sad fact of life.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 9 points

SOLUTION: yay!

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

15.

If everyone is unique, what makes a person really unique???

We usually say that we shouldn't compare ourselves to other because everyone is a unique individual. So, if everyone is unique and we are ALL unique,,what makes us really unique? gets????=)))

16 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 30 comments

Comments:

uniqueness is difference. If everyone is unique, everyone is different. What makes a person unique is that everyone is different. If everyone is unique, that doesn't mean that everyone is the same because everyone is unique. Uniqueness doesn't mean that everyone is totally different, it just means that everyone has some special qualities of their own. Every person is a human, every human lives on Earth. Every human needs to drink water to live. But that doesn't mean no one can be unique. You can be unique by having brown hair and someone else has pink hair and someone else has blonde hair, even though you're all still human.

Added 8 months ago by guest, 0 points

Your unique just like everybody else

Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point

This isn't a paradox. You're saying that all humans share A SINGLE TRAIT. That doesn't stop each individual's other zillion characteristics from being different. Besides, each one is unique in a different way, thus even so this trait isn't common.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point

Because we are different in different ways, but not all of our qualities are just as different than those of others, some characteristics are way out there, while some are only slightly different than those of others. Some are even the same! So really, we are all REALLY unique because we are all different from each other in different ways and amounts, and with different combinations that make up our person. Y'know?

Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point

maybe that he is the only one who isn't unique like all the others. say all the others had super powers. the one guy would stand out by either having different power, unique (LOL) power, or no powers whatsoever

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

One word: Fingerprints

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Agreed The fact that we all are unique is not a unique factor in us . But other factors in us make us unique

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Not everyone is the same so it is not true both ways

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

The fact that we are not the same.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The is way to many combinations in this universe to make a perfect duplicate, so we can always say we're unique

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The Answer: Our DNA.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

We are all unique and in that we are all the same therefore no one is unique. You're unique just like everyone else.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

Everyone is the same in the sense that we all have unique qualities. What make us unique is the variation.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Everyone is unique in different ways. Geez, get real paradoxes.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

whats unique about a person that makes un unique

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

WOW Who made these not paradoxes

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

nobody is really unique. Everybody is, theoretically, the same

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

You mean: if everyone is unique, everyone is the same, therefore not unique

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Fingerprints

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

Everyone is unique in different ways. It is not like uniqueness is a specific quality. it is rather a general term which covers a wide basis of charecteristics

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

The proper theoretical thing to say is that we have unique DNA; this is quite the question to ask, because as assured as I am that you've created this page I'm pretty sure if you're studying paradoxes you know what DNA is...

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

good question. if we are all unique, then saying everyone is unique is like saying that it is normal, but then saying that someone is normal is like calling them unique, but then that is like calling them normal, and so on and so fourth.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Nice one!!!! I think everyone is unique in their own way

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

SOLUTION: This also suggests that a person isn't unique because there are other persons. Everyone is Unique having different kinds of uniqueness.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points

maybe not being unique

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

We are all the same in that sense but we have different qualities

Added 4 years ago by guest, -2 points

Its their personality

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

If their the same :)

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

Unique is simply unique. One can not be REALLY unique or a LITTLE unique :)

Added 5 years ago by guest, 0 points

Everyone has a unique thing about them, but not everyone has the same unique trait therefore this is not a paradox at all

Added 5 years ago by JohnDixon, 0 points

16.

God chose you before the foundation of the world to choose Him

10 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 5 comments

Comments:

And if I wasn't chosen, then I'm SOL, and no matter how hard I tried, I could never be one of the chosen.

Added 5 months ago by guest, -1 points

God is a paradox unto itself

Added 10 months ago by guest, -1 points

shen me

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

I don't get the paradox???

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

What?!?

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

17.

Being Born is a Death Sentence.

When you are born, you are destined to die some day...

10 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 22 comments

Comments:

Being born is living eternal life because you go to Heaven. :)

Added 8 months ago by guest, 3 points

This is not a paradox

Added 1 year ago by guest, 12 points

But when you die either it will be the same as the time before you were born or, if you believe in it, you go to Heaven

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Yes, but for the meantime, you're alive!!!!

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

yea but not bieng born is not existing at all.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

It is, we're all now a second closer to death then before.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Ok. So it is.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

This is very true

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Death is peaceful ,silent .........
Life is harder a.k.a Bella Swan (twilight)

Added 2 years ago by guest, -5 points

Your body regenerates itself quicker than parts die, to a certain age - it's how you grow and mature. Thus, you are not dying as soon as you are born, but dying possibly after puberty has ended. Otherwise, one could argue you are dying from the moment which follows sperm entering the egg, not just after birth.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 18 points

Being cleaned after bath is a Dirty sentence

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

Being Born is a Death Sentence is Irony, not paradox...

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

This is true, as Iron Maiden said "As soon as you're born, you're dying"

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

SOLUTION: Wrong. Fertilization is because it's where life begins. This isn't a paradox rather an information.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points

No! If your born you have to die!
but i dont get how this is a paradox.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

of course! we are all sentenced to die the minute we're born b/c we don't live forever in our flesh

Added 4 years ago by guest, 5 points

I don't get this being a paradox

Added 4 years ago by guest, -9 points

When you die your brain is not active therefore you will not think or have any senses so technically you will not exist.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -3 points

no one knows where we hav come from ???...and where are we gonna go when we die....

Added 5 years ago by guest, -1 points

and also every step you take leads you to the place of your death AND if i may continue onward;
a breath is like a death-clock counting down to you final breath (it inescapable because if you try and stop breathing to pause the clock you will die anyway - this is the curse of humanity)

Added 5 years ago by guest, 7 points

If you don't believe in God that is........just sayin'

Added 6 years ago by guest, -6 points

so when your not born you're alive?

Added 6 years ago by guest, -4 points

18.

What happens when Pinocchio says that is nose WILL grow?

I think the universe might explode…

8 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 5 comments

Comments:

if he believes it, it isn't a lie. it is just a wrong statement, therefor his nose would not grow.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

he said it will grow that means the next time he lies it will grow making this sentence a fact not a paradox and if he dies before he tells that lie then it is a lie but he is dead so who cares

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

This is just question 3 all over again

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

Aye, m8.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

mind blown…

Added 2 years ago by guest, -11 points

19.

21. Quitting

If you quit quitting does that make you a quitter?

8 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 15 comments

Comments:

It would be the last time that you would ever quit something, but because you actually quit it, you are a quitter. Because you quit quitting, you will never quit anymore. It would be, as I said, your last quit.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points

Yes, because you quit something.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

that technically means that everyone in the world is a quitter

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I don't get this

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

yes

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

If you quit one thing, it doesn't really qualify as a quitter... its like making muffins in H.E, doesnt make you a baker

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

no wait yes no it yes. I dont Know Help Me find out

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

No.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

There must be a lot of quitters in this world

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

If you hate on haters are u a hater?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

If you succeed at something that means that you are failing at failing but if you are failing at failing then you can't possibly succeed. But if you didn't succeed than you succeeded at failing which means that you succeeded which means that you failed at faling...

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

That means that once you start quitting you are permanently a quitter because in order to quit your quitting you will need to quit.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

SOLUTION: You're a quitter even before you quit it.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

Yup. That's because if you quit quitting means quitting- you have done that earlier atleast once. So that makes u a quitter too.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 4 points

What would you be quitting before you quit quitting?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 7 points

20.

Does A Set Of All Sets Contain Itself?

>:D

7 points - added 1 year ago by BurgerAndaParadox - 3 comments

Comments:

This is Russell's paradox, this simple answer is if it does than it doesn't and if it doesn't than it does, Bertrand Russell said this himself

Added 8 months ago by guest, 0 points

No it's just not possible.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

Yes

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

21.

Have you ever considered the phrase "IGNORE ALL RULES" a rule itself?

Do you ignore it, or not?

7 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 4 comments

Comments:

You can follow the rule, and still follow a few rules afterwords. What's that, you say? That's breaking the rules? Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Added 11 months ago by guest, -1 points

No, because it's just a phrase and a suggestion.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

No because the definition of rules are newly created guidelines that we have to follow... So telling someone to ignore the newly created guidelines is not a rule just a fresh slate.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Yep!!!!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

22.

Barber Shop Paradox

There is one barber in the town. All the people in the town want to keep their faces cleanly shaven. The barber only shaves the heads of those who don't shave themselves at home. No one else shaves for others in the town. In this situation, who cuts the barbers hair? No one else will cut it, and he shaves those who don't do it for themselves. If he doesn't do it himself, than he will, but if he does do it for himself, than the barber does not cut his hair, but he does! WTF!

6 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 4 comments

Comments:

Trick question he doesn't shave AT HOME!!

Added 4 months ago by guest, 2 points

He uses Nair.

Added 5 months ago by guest, 0 points

He shaves in a neighboring town. After all, "no one else shaves for others IN THE TOWN", and it was never established that they couldn't leave the town.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 2 points

what if the barber is a woman? problem solved

Added 2 years ago by guest, 22 points

23.

"I will never tell the truth"

Is it paradox?

6 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 15 comments

Comments:

Well, technically you could say its a lie, because if its a lie, you are lying right there, but its not like ALL your other comments are lies. You could tell truth in some other places; this sentence just happens to be a lie.

Added 26 days ago by guest, 1 point

it totally is a paradox its can be compared to the grandfather paradox if he says he isnt telling the truth and he is lying then he is telling the truth but if hes telling the truth then he is lying this keeps repeating so on and so forth

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

No it's not a paradox, but it's a lie, because he would have to eventually have to tell the truth. For example: "what's your name?" "John." See?

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

this statement isn't a paradox. It is a declaration of what is to come. Unfortunately, the future DOES NOT EXIST! You can "create" your future. However, you cannot "travel" to the future. You will only ever be IN THE PRESENT. Because, no matter where you go, there you are. You are only ever "PRESENT" in the "PRESENT". If you go to the future, it is no longer the future because you are PRESENT. Therefore, the statement "I will never tell the truth" CANNOT be a paradox!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

you just told the truth, or maybe a lie (mind blown)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The future tense deletes the paradox.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

no because its the only truth said

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

he means from now on

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

saying that is lying, so if the statement was a lie, than he would tell the truth, but if he was telling the truth, than it would be true that he would not tell the truth, making him lie, and it just goes on and on and on.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

You are saying you'll never say the truth. That means you are lying when saying that, which means that you are telling a lie, so you'll always tell the truth.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

SOLUTION: You are simply stating to us that you will never tell the truth. It has to be more like: "This sentence isn't the truth."

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

This is not a paradox. The key word is never. This sentence is a lie. You will SOMETIMES tell the truth.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

Don't speak

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

To make this a paradox we must assume that a person either always lies or always tells the truth. Otherwise they were just lying at the moment they said it.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 2 points

I never tell lies.*

Added 4 years ago by guest, -4 points

24.

2 portals

1 portal is placed on table A and another on table B, what where to happon if you inserted table a into the portal on table B?

5 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 1 comment

Comments:

The two portals are exactly the same size, so it simply wouldn't fit even if they weren't exactly the same size, the outer parts of the larger circle wouldn't really be a functioning part of the portal, as the any object that was big enough so that it would have to use that extra, outer part of the larger portal, it wouldn't go through, as it would be too big to fit out of the smaller portal. However, if the portals were not perfectly round, like they are but instead, say, an oval you could rotate it, and it would fit. And then... well... i guess while one side of it went in, it would slowly come out of itself... and... uh.... One of the tables might be split in half... either that, or the portal would break... I think... Actually, let's just say they have to be circles for it to work.

Added 11 months ago by guest, -1 points

25.

The sentence after this is true. The sentence before this is false.

this one is my fav =)

5 points - added 3 years ago by DoubleATeam - 5 comments

Comments:

That is correct if you do the second sentence first.

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

You can't start the paradox, number 2 can't be false because that would contradict number 1 and it can't be false because that would make number 1 false making number 2 true

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

Both true, it's complicated for your minds to understand.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -7 points

What if they both lie?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 13 points

this is not gonna solve. If the sentence after this is true, the sentence before this is false that will make the sentence after this is false, and the sentence after this is true..

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

26.

If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

A)25%
B)50%
C)60%
D)25%

4 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 23 comments

Comments:

- if A is then D is also correct, therfore there is a 50% chance then neither A nor D is correct
- if either B or C is correct, paradox. Because then, there is only a 25%

Added 3 months ago by guest, 0 points

It doesn't matter about the percentage after the a b c and d. You have a 25% chance because it's random

Added 5 months ago by guest, 0 points

50% because there is two 25% so is a 50% chance you will select the right 25%.

Added 7 months ago by guest, 1 point

So the answer would be 25% but this is made impossible by the fact that there are 2 options of 25%. If there was one answer of 25% is the only way this would be possible as there are 4 answers and one is correct. Boom.

Added 8 months ago by guest, -3 points

there is no question so there is no answer, except multiple choice questions with four answers have a 25% chance of being correct, with the mistake of two being the same the chances are 50% if the answer is 25%, and 25% for both c and d

Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point

the answer will always be incorrect cuz the real answer is 33.3333%
you have the choice of 25%, 50%, and 60%.
those are 3 answers
and 1/3 of 100 = 33.3333%

Added 9 months ago by guest, -2 points

The answer is 75% because 25%+25% is 50% and there already is a 50% so that makes it 3/4 chance. Therefore, there is no answer because 75% is not there.

Added 10 months ago by guest, -2 points

It would be 25% because you choose one answer out of 4 possible answers and a probability of 1 in 4 is 25%

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

There is no answer to the question, so all of the answers are wrong. It is just like saying How many people are there on Earth? a)1 b)2 c)3 d)4 Not a paradox, just a failed question, although slightly more complicated

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

It's simple:
If I had to answer how high the chance is that I will be correct, I would choose B) 50%.
If I had to answer the answer that would give me the highest chance of getting it correct, I would choose either A) 25% or D) 25% (They are the same).
If I had to answer which of the two answers I had to choose to get the highest chance of having my chosen answer correct, I will answer B) 50% (There is a 50% possibility that A is right and a 50% possibility that D is right).
I end up having 2 answers resulting for B, and 1 answer resulting for either A or D.
This means that I most likely should go for answer B, because the chance that this answer is correct is 66.66666667%.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

50%
because there is 4 answers so it would be 25% but there are two 25%. so two out of four answers is 50%

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

0%... Regardless of the fact that there are four options does not change the fact that there are still only three answers. Human thinking and elimination would omit D since it has the same answer as A and A is not omitted instead simply because as humans we more likely to "prefer it". Now you only have 3 options to work with and three answers, not four. 100/3=33.3...% That answer is not there at all. Therefore no matter which answer you pick, it will remain incorrect.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

you end up in a circle.....there are 4 options assuming one is correct you have a 25% probability(1/4 chance) so the correct answer is 25%..but 25% pops up twice in 4 options so that makes it 50%(2/4=1/2) which brings us back to 25% and so on and so forth. It has a lot of self referencing and assumptions.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

1 in infinity, because of all the combinations of questions you can have.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

It depends on how many answers there are

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Alright guys, there is no answer.
0%would be false because that would make it a correct Answer, causing it to be false.
Not 25% because that would make it 50
Not 50% because that would make it 25
Not 75% because that would imply that both 50% and 25% are correct, which is impossible.
100%... I'm not even acknowledging that.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I get it... If you were to specify something to answer, you would click 25% (4 answers), but 25% percent pops up twice. Not a paradox, just a trick question.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The ACTUAL question that you are being asked to answer is "what is the chance you will be correct"?
SOLUTION: 100% Since there is no wrong answer because the question doesn't specify WHAT you have a chance of being correct AT!
A, B, C, and D have NOTHING to do with that question. *drops mic, walks off stage*

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

0 because if I just chose one they each have 25. That means that the new probability is 50. There are now 3 answers that could be right so it has to be 75. 75 is not a choice so it's 0. (Sorry I couldn't find the percent sign.)

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

0% cause there is no question involvind those answers...

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

How is this a paradox? Its a statistical probability question.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

it would be 50% because 25 shows up twice and you can't have 2 of the correct answer and then that leaves two answers left which is 50%

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

technically its 66.6 infinity because 25% show up twice so its 25%, 50%, and 60%

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

27.

New Mission! If this statement is false then ignore this mission!

Hellooo

4 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 3 comments

Comments:

This is how it goes your mission is to not accept this mission do you accept

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

New mission: refuse this mission.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 9 points

I see what you tried to do there, but since the statement is a command, it can't be true or false.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 9 points

28.

The set of all sets that dont contain themselves

Because it is amazing.

4 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 7 comments

Comments:

There's infinite sets and only a finite universe.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

i figured this out when playing portal.
if you place a portal in front of you and one behind you then you can see your self in the portal, making you inside it, but you also know that you arent in it since you are just right there. so the answer is yes it contains its self, but also doesn't

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The set of all sets doesn't contain itself because the set of all sets comes with the box and everything inside. So technically the set of all sets dose contain itself.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Never thought of this Ill repeat it if you did not hear. Never thought of this

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

it is actually "does a set of all sets contain its self"

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

This is a common Russelian Paradox which prompted the change in the definiton of a set, allowing it to contain itself because it applies to itself.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

Solution: There can always be at least a single set that contains a set of all sets that don't contain themselves.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points

29.

What happens if you plug a cord into a cord and into a powerstrip?

3 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 7 comments

Comments:

Nothing would happen.. You need to have power to power the strip and the cord and if you're creating a loop with the cords, there's no power.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

the Milky Way just blows up

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

Your house burns down.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 10 points

It's like if you link two sides of a battery. The cord will get too hot and it'll get on flames and cause fire.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

the powerstrip explodes and it ultimately leads to the end of the world and the destruction of the universe

Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points

same as below ok learn it!!!!!!

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

Infinet POWER. Nice if you know this refrence.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

30.

A stranger says to a girl, don't ever trust strangers ? What will happen?

3 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 16 comments

Comments:

Get to know the stranger, making him not a stranger. Then can be sure if you're decision was a good one or not.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 4 points

she will mace him and then call the police " who are strangers themselves" as she maces them to and then they shoot her. so yea. she is killed for listening to a stranger

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

well, if he told her to not trust a stranger then not trust him and wouldn't just go back and forth between trusting him or not in one second, I know I wouldnt

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

Simple- she wouldn't trust any stranger not even this one. By listening to what he says , it does not mean that she is trusting him for something. It is just that she is following his advice.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

Considering shes a girl she wouldnt have heard him beacuse she was looking into his eyes. Then when she realized what he said it would be to late... She is already in a bed.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

Is he really a stranger, because if he is, you would not trust him, because their are some who can be trusted with lives (not recommended, though).

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

She would trust everyone because he's a strangers so he pretty much said "don't trust me, AT ALL."

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

you run away

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

stranger danger

Added 2 years ago by guest, 10 points

She'll probably just not trust everyone but that stranger. I guess we'll never know...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

A stranger was the guy's name. The girl was a very close friend of A stranger so she listened to him.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 12 points

listens to him then runs away after punching him

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

She keeps listening to strangers.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

her head explodes

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Scream and run...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

So... she CAN trust strangers?
Ok, my brain hurts now.

Added 3 years ago by DoubleATeam, 6 points

31.

Here is a question. Why do we consider a paradox reason for impossibility.

Obviously something cant be two different things. I am not talking about paradoxes of negation. I am talking about circumstantial paradoxes. Such as the grandfather paradox. (I go back in time and shoot my grandfather). What about such a paradox makes time travel impossible. It seems rather contingent to say that time travel is possible given we dont kill our grandfather. That make my will somehow influence the effectiveness of my time machine in a very improper way.
Conversely, Lets cop to that notion. Let us say the grandfather paradox does not preclude the possibility of time travel. (notice even if time travel is practically impossible due to power constraints or some matter of fact, it can still be thought of as conceivable). Then what? If its possible for time travel to take place barring practical concerns, what happens if I shoot my grandfather?
Thoughts?

3 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 17 comments

Comments:

A paradox is a logical impossibility for a human being to do. So it is quite impossible.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 0 points

the ONLY way shooting him will have an effect on you is if your parents have NOT been born prior to when you kill him.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

cause' thats the way the world is. get used to it

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Without the laws of energy or whatever ripping apart the universe, time travel would require a bubble, in the dimension of time, for you to travel in as you yourself would age as you travel

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

because if wwe were to time travel then we would automatically be creating a paradox that could potentially be the end of all time

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

It depends on which theory of time travel you believe to be true

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Time travel doesnt work like that. In reality the only way to travel back in time would be to reverse the flow of time itself, meaning, you would not exist because you haven't been born yet.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

I say you will be sitting in a couch behind death forever as he thinks about whether you should die or not lolol

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

you kill him after his children are born

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

Technically if you time travel it is impossible to live in the same universe when you return, because the butterfly effect will cause different weather to happen elsewhere and could eventually (or instantaneously) destroy reality. Every time a time traveler breathes he creates an alternate dimension, so if we killed our grandfathers nothing will happen to your grandfather because there is the infinite possibility of ornate coincidence, keeping you away from your grandfather. If you did kill your grandfather, which is impossible during time travel anyway due to coincidences, you would literally destroy the fabric of space and time, setting across the (not just visible) universe an intense wildfire that would destroy all existence. But if that did happen, there would be a seperate dimension in which this didn't happen anyway and in said time period you never time traveled, or maybe you did but you were set back by a coincidence and tried to do it again, but everything above will happen again anyway. Somewhere in a parallel universe, this text was never written by me, never will be or someday will. There are so many possibilities stated by this "paradox" that when approached logically there is a solution: It can't happen.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

you wouldn't exist in the first place if you killed your grandfather, which means you didn't kill your grandfather since you don't exist.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

SOLUTION: The very fact that you we're born means that somewhere, sometime, somehow, you failed to kill your grandfather meaning all of us can't kill our grandfathers, or fathers, or even time travel.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points

the key to the grandfather paradox is that if you shot him,you would create a parallel universe.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

One interpretation of time travel is that a new split is made in the multiverse, so you'd essentially be screwing over another copy of yourself.
You could also argue that because you are already born, therefore the repercussions of your actions (and inactions) are already being felt, and you therefore did not kill your grandfather.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

you may or may not exist depending n the time you shot your grandfather, because you can still time travel and shoot your grandfather after your dad was born. and if you shot your grandfather, he will get hurt or worse-die.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

tl;dr

Added 4 years ago by guest, -3 points

what?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 2 points

32.

Your brain named itself

You use your brain to think and make up stuff. Such as naming things, so the brain named itself. But the real question is: Is your brain you or is your brain controlling you? Are you you or are you your brain?

2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 1 comment

Comments:

You are your brain. Your body just holds things your brain needs to live, so your brain gave you the different abilities to get all the things you need to live so your brain can live as well

Added 2 months ago by guest, 1 point

33.

New mission! Don't accept missions

2 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 14 comments

Comments:

If the new mission is: not to accept missions than, you should accept missions, because you didn't accept the new mission.

Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point

New mission, fml

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

accept and then porposely fail and then go to mcdonalds after a hard day

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

It doesn't say not to accept the mission given right then

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

A mission doesn't start until it's accepted. Accept the mission and don't accept any more.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

i accepted the mission before i could complete it, so it wold simply be the last mission I do

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

You don't, that's what.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

If you dont accept the mission youre accepting it by refusing it. If you accept it your also refusing it hence a circle paradox

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

I don't accept it. They said don't accept it, not don't do it.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

this is a paradox because your mission is to not except any new missions including this one. There for if you accept this mission you fail the mission but if you fail the mission then you also accept the mission. its a circle paradox.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

I think the paradox is "New mission: refuse this mission" the one you put up doesn't make sense.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Then you just don't do the mission and continue accepting others

Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points

this is dumb

Added 2 years ago by guest, -10 points

Do you accept?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

34.

Divide by zero?

Yes I did it!

2 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 15 comments

Comments:

4/2: you have 4 cookies and you want to divide them between 2 of your friends. Answer: every friend gets 2 cookies.
2/0: you have 2 cookies and you want to divide them between no one. Answer: ****.
See? the reason dividing a number by zero gives an unidentified answer is because the question itself doesn't make sense.
Dividing number A by B is finding out which number that if multiplied by B, gives A.
And since every number that's multiplied by zero gives zero, then it's impossible to divide any number by zero.

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

Imagine that you have zero cookies and try to split them evenly with zero friends. See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that you have no friends. And you are sad that you have no friends.
(Siri told me this)

Added 11 months ago by guest, 1 point

just saying, 1 does not equil 1/0, it equils 1/1

Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points

Technically, we have been dividing by sero all along, the number 1 is equal to 1/0 which is also equal to 1 divides by zero. So we can divide by zero all we want, if i have 10 apples and i have 0 friends i cant share it with any of them, but if i divide by 0 i cannot have them either, therefor NO APPLES FOR ANYONE!

Added 1 year ago by guest, -5 points

everything will explode

Added 1 year ago by guest, 7 points

Is one divided by zero equal to infinity? NO. If it were infinity, that would mean that you could multiply whatever number you wanted by zero and get one, which is clearly not true. No number multiplied by zero is going to produce one. Thus, it is undefined. With zero divided by zero, however, it is indeterminate because any number multiplied by zero will return zero.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

1/0 would be infinity and negative infinity because 0 is not positive nor negative. So it is undefined.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

It iis quit possible to do so however it is a math rule not to. Research 1 is equal to 2

Added 2 years ago by guest, -2 points

we have to say undefined to make people understand it.....in my personal opinion i think it is infinity....people wont accept it because if 1/0=infinity then 2/0=infinity which can cause people to end up with the opinion that 1=2......this is based on a misunderstanding that 0 and infinity are governed by simple arithmetic laws..both are beyond human comprehension quite frankly......as absurd as it sounds infinity is a number let me rephrase that an idea that is so large that it is most similar to something that is nothing that is 0.......call me crazy but in terms of ideas and nature 0=infinity..................forget dividing by zero and infinity.....zero and infinity by itselves are paradoxes

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

It's undefined.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Dividing anything by 0 is impossible. End of story.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Don't say infinity because that means a number times 0 equals infinity. WRONG!!!

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

20/4 = 5 because you can subtract 4 from 20, 5 times. Subtracting zero can be done an infinite amount of times

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

That's not it. 1/0 is saying that a number multiplied by 0 equals 1, however, there is no number which, multiplied by 0, is equal to a number other than 0. 1/0=n is the same as n x 0 = 1.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

1divided by zero is infinity cus there are infinit groups of zero in one you learn this in kindagarden.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -13 points

35.

Existance is a paradox in itself

Following that law of physics that says every positive affect has a negative effect, existance itself breaks this law, because it is impossible for matter to not exist (you can break something into smaller pieces, but those pieces will always be, they cant be erased, only broken down). So existance has no negative form, no duality. therefor all life is a paradox. THOUGH this may be what a black hole is, Nature's way of balancing out existance with the 'non existance' made from the black whole, but if the black whole made non existance, than does non existance exist? Another paradox?

2 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 4 comments

Comments:

A black hole is essentially the result of too great a mass occupying a volume that cannot contain it, such as the entirety of a star collapsing within itself. It creates a magnetic field so strong not even light can escape. The ratio of mass to volume required for a black hole to form is unique from one region of space to another, and since between any two points there are infinitely many points, it is incalculable. However, each black hole has a calculable "point of no return," aka an "event horizon." This is a radius that marks the distance at which an object will take permanent orbit that can only be changed by an outside force (rocket jets, collision, etc.). Once within the radius, no object can escape on its own and will move inevitably toward the center. It is unknown what happens at the center or to the atoms that reach it, but anything that does reach the center would be so strongly affected by the gravity that it collapses into the most compact possible form. Humans would become so compressed that they'd be invisible to the naked eye. This happens long before reaching the center and takes a matter of milliseconds. But don't worry, the intense heat radiating from the center would incinerate a person before this happens. Terrifying, right?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

its called anti matter

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

In regards to the previous comment, actually, conversion of matter to energy happens naturally all the time. The mass of a nucleus differs calculatably from the sum of its parts due to the strong nuclear particles slowing down enough to be measured as mass.
As for the original post, this is a good metaphysical paradox, but it's ruined by the flawed attempt at a scientific explanation. The laws of "science" -- in this case, I assume you meant the laws of motion -- do not apply to things which don't exist; why you even bring them up, I can't fathom.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

It is possible for matter to not exist. A nuclear bomb splits an atom turning matter into energy which creates the explosion (conversion of matter into energy does not happen naturally as far as I know). Also science generally accepts that all black wholes come from collapsing stars.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

36.

0is the absolute opposite of infinity, yet in a 3 dimensional figure 0 is an infinitely small space.

1 point - added 1 year ago by guest - 2 comments

Comments:

Wrong the opposite of infinity is negative infinity

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

*Mind Explodes* falls to the floor needs life alert

Added 1 year ago by guest, 12 points

37.

Nobody went there because it was so crowded.

Because if you think about it, how would it be crowded if nobody went there? Pretty confusing.

1 point - added 2 years ago by guest - 8 comments

Comments:

They never said it was crowded with people…

Added 2 years ago by guest, 10 points

Crowded by what is the question?!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points

"There" hasn't been defined as a particular place. Therefore, "there" could be ANYWHERE or NOWHERE at all.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

this is a figure of speech not a trick question nor something to think about. saying nobody could be you and your friend group... eg none of my friends went there because it was so crowded.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

The space is crowded by inanimate objects, therefore no one is there, but it is still crowded.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

The people in the crowd were taken there they didnt go willingly so they cannot say that they went there

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I was thinking something like this the other day... One road was really traffic-y so we went on a back road that lead to the same place. So, I thought, what if everyone went on the backway, should we go on that main road? What if everyone decided to go on the main road because they thought the backway would be crowded? I don't know... just throwing thoughts out there.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

What if the people there can't leave?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 11 points

38.

What happens if your wish for the Glodenfish is to have an infinite number of wishes?

1 point - added 4 years ago by guest - 10 comments

Comments:

well infinity = 0.
okok... a 3 dimensional object makes 0 an infinitely small space. call me crazy but 0 is infinitely infinite. so dem sneaky lil goldenfishies will leave because u asked for infinitely 0 wishes.
which brings up the question of having 0 wishes. that wish will not come true because you have already used one wish, making that wish untrue.
so dont ask for endless wishes because thats what they do. they ruin all yo dreams.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

You spelled Goldenfish wrong

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

That depens... if the goldenfish has a rule of not asking for more whishes... (works with 3 wishes) ask the first wish to make the 2nd wish a Rule-free wish... and use the third wish for infinate rule free wishes.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

If the Golden fish doesn't except that that wish for more Golden fishes.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

You spelled "Goldenfish" wrong. What is a "Glodenfish"?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

SOLUTION: then you have an infinite number of wishes. What do you expect? Spaghetti on an iPad?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 45 points

to the second guy*

Added 3 years ago by guest, -4 points

To the first guy: don't bring up the laws of the universe because a "wish" just defies all laws of the universe :p

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Why want an "Infinite" number of wishes if neither you or the "Goldenfish" will exist forever. The laws of the universe wouldn't allow that. There's not an infinite amount of mass or energy to sustain the existance of you or the fish to exist forever. I think for that to work, you and the fish would have to be ghosts.

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

Then you get an infinite number of wishes. Duh.
Here is some thing better. I WISH TO NOT HAVE THIS WISH COME TRUE! There.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 29 points

39.

Bullet Paradox

Person A fires a gun into a time machine which kills himself before firing the bullet, then the bullet kills him, but he's not dead because if he died before he fired the bullet at himself before he fires it at himself, he doesn't fire it at himself.

0 points - added 6 months ago by guest -

40.

The Double Door Paradox

You are trying to get to a room and two doors lead to it.You cant see one door but the door you can see is closed.If you go open the door it takes longer,if you pass it and the other door is open that way is faster.But if both doors are closed (you dont know)the first one would be quicker,and if both doors were open(same thing) the first one would be quicker.But you dont know so it is a mind game :)

0 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 1 comment

Comments:

It seems to me there are four possible door combinations:
Open/Open
Closed/Closed
Closed/Open
Open/Closed
By the description provided, the first door is closed, so that leaves us only two remaining combinations:
Closed/Open
Closed/Closed
There is a 50/50 chance that the second door is faster. I don't see the paradoxical nature of the doors? One way is strictly faster than the other, and there are several solutions.
For instance, how long does it take to open a door? How long does it take to walk to the second door (only close enough to determine if it is open or not).
This is as much a paradox as saying "If you flip a coin, it might come up heads! PARADOX!"

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

41.

Nobody goes to that restaurant because it is too crowded.

Think about it. If it is too crowded and nobody goes there, where does the crowd come from?

0 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 3 comments

Comments:

Is it because no one leaves?

Added 10 months ago by guest, -1 points

Well, you can't say that nobody goes to that restaurant because it's crowded. You can't say that because some people need to go to the restaurant to make it crowded! After all, this is not a paradox)-;

Added 11 months ago by guest, -1 points

Outerspace

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

42.

Invention improvement paradox

Here is one I created. If a thing was invented as an improvement to another one (and people use the new invention more now) then which invention is the most important?

0 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 3 comments

Comments:

An improvement to an invention is called an inovation so necisarily there is no 2nd invention

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

The one that explains why that's a paradox

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

The original. The new improvement is still the same as the old one, just better, but without the old one, the new one wouldn't exist.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

43.

New mission! Refuse this mission!

Figure it out

0 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 3 comments

Comments:

I'll just ignore the mission. I won't refuse it or accept it.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

PORTAL!!!!!!!!. GLaDOS should've given this one to Wheatley instead. It's harder to fake solve.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Portal 2!

Added 3 years ago by guest, 17 points

44.

If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how was matter created?

-2 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 10 comments

Comments:

lol

Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point

It doesn't Matter..!!

Added 10 months ago by guest, 8 points

The universe is eternal; although, we don't understand how there is no beginning, and no end to it, because our minds cannot perceive such a thing; only God can. U see, we weren't brought into this world to understand. We have a difference purpose, so why do we waste our time on useless discussions like these... They don't Matter

Added 12 months ago by guest, 1 point

If God exists and made everything, then how did God get there? If you say he was just there, then why couldn't matter have just been there?

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

there is no matter

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

I guess matter can be created.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

God

Added 1 year ago by guest, 4 points

It wasn't: the universe is eternal.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

Technically this means that the big bang would of not been the cause of matter because there was tiny bits of matter that created the big bang for instance helium particles combined with something else which caused a huge explosion creating now what we call earth

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

Big Bang

Added 1 year ago by guest, -8 points

45.

nothing is impossible

if nothing is impossible then the possibility of something being impossible doesnt exist, or is impossible

-2 points - added 3 years ago by guest -

46.

Eating Pie. If you eat half of a pie, and then eat half of the remaining pie, and half of that remaining pie and so on, will the pie ever run out?

cos I said so

-3 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 18 comments

Comments:

its matter, matter may not be destroyed! Yes, it may not be considered a pie, but, itʻs atomʻs of the pie. It will never run out. So, really, it doesnʻt MATTER!!! Buh Dum Crash!!

Added 10 months ago by guest, 2 points

Yes

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Some of the pie molecules can only get so small until they split into atoms. So eventually it won't be pie. So yes.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 6 points

It wont run out but you wont be able to cut and/or eat it once you get to about the 7th try of that

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

It would get down to atoms, you would have to split the atom and you would not be able to survive it smashing into you, never mind eat it.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

A pie is WHOLE. The PIE was no longer a PIE once you took your first bite. What's left after you take any part of the pie away is the "remaining pie". Therefore, your question is invalid.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

No. Eventually it will become microscopic and it will still be matter. One does not simply destroy matter

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

That's sort of like the weird thing where some guy said that motion doesn't exist for that same reason. First you need to go half the distance and then half that distance and so on forever. If you're constantly going half the distance then you never get anywhere.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Continuing the previous comment: A pie is simply a collection of molecules that taste good when eaten together.
So imagine this: You have eaten to the point that you have exactly one of each type of molecule in the pie. Once you remove half of those molecules, you can't call it a pie anymore (because not everything in the original pie is present).

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Once you eat a certain amount of pie, it would be infeasible to eat exactly half of the remainder. You know, knives and/or teeth are note infinitely accurate....

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Well, eventually you'd consume all but one atom, which by itself, would no longer be pie. So yes, all the pie will be consumed.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Atomic Explosion

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

nope: you are eating halves and halves of just the half of the pie. You still will have the other half of the pie

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

In math, it would create a graph with an asymptote. In reality, there would be a point at which the pie would get to be as small as an atom and nuclear fission would occur. But is that pie? The pie is not a compound so if you take a crumb of pie, it does not contain the same ratio of ingredients in it. My head hurts

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

eventually it will get so small that you split the atoms apart and the whole thing blows up

Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points

Zeno's paradox, very good one. Lets do it like this, we take 1/2 then we add 1/4 then add 1/8, so this is how you eat the pie and the question here is: do i ever reach 1 (the whole pie). So lets make a sum: 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... and so on. Now lets say the answer to that sum =S. Okay now take 2S and that would be the same sum multiplied by 2, so: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64... amd so on again. Now we take this 2S and subtract S, so: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... (and so on) - 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64.... (and so on). Actually these sums are the same only the first one starts with 1 that make S=1 so the cake will actually be finished, have a nice dessert!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

Poor Pie. :(

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

well eventually the atom of the pie will just get so small that you wont be able to split it any further, so technically... no it wont.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

47.

1=.99999...?

if 1/9=.11111...
then 9(1/9)=9(.11111...)
therefore 9/9=.99999...
finally 1=.99999....
i know you can round but taking the numbers as they are...this is a paradox

-3 points - added 4 years ago by guest - 8 comments

Comments:

Not a paradox, as it has a solution, 1=.999999
as fr the idiot who says it doesn't, you are an idiot
source: math teacher

Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points

LolNo. Why are just randomly multiplying them by 9? It is simply and unsolvable mathematic equation by then. Also. Guest with "another explanation," You firstly said that x=.999999. That's your answer. There is no multiplying both sides by 10. Even if you did, you would have to subtract x from both sides since it's an algebraic equation, thus: 10x-x=9.99999-x so 9x=9.99999-x which would essentially lead to going back to 10x=9.99999 in which, the result is x=.999999, which, by the way, is the equation you had IN THE VERY FIRST PLACE.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -4 points

My brain has officially exploded.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 0 points

if thats true all numbers are .99999 then we cant add all numbers they are 1 or.99999 so everything is equivelent to 1

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

I have another explanation.
x=.999999...
10x=9.99999...
10x-x=9=9x
x=1

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Vi Hart from YouTube has a video about this

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

The problem with your logic, is that decimals don't really exist. If it is an irrational number, it must be expressed as a radical number or fractions. 9 * (1/9) equals 9/9 which equals 1

Added 4 years ago by guest, -1 points

Nothing paradoxical here. 1 can also be expressed as 1/1 and it is still the same value. You actually proved the equation yourself, though another proof is: 1/3=.3333333. . . So .333333. . . X3=.9999999. . .

Added 4 years ago by guest, 3 points

48.

When an alarm goes off it switches itself on

Simple logic. We say alarms go "off" when the alarm switches itself on. Not really a paradox but still an interesting flaw in the English language.

-3 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 4 comments

Comments:

Not a flaw. The alarm sounds which give OFF sound, thats why we say it goes
off

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

The alarm is never "OFF" unless you turn it off. It will always be "ON". The only thing that switches "ON" is the notification that is used to alert you to the alarm that you set.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

oh my gosh this is so legit

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

SOLUTION: The state of the alarm holding itself to not work is the "ON" state.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

49.

If a convict is already on death row, why do they still need to use sterilized needles to inject the convict?

Because of Human rights?

-3 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 9 comments

Comments:

If the prisoner survives the injection (it has happened) they are free to go and therefor the prisoner would have the right to sue for the infection

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

they call it humanity...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

SOLUTION: where's the paradox?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

This is the actual reason. If the prisoner is pardoned after the needle is inserted, but before the poison is given, the state is liable if it becomes infected.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 13 points

they use sterilized needles because when you buy a pack of medical needles they are pre sterilized.I personally don't know any hospitals that stock unsterilized needles.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 5 points

if there was somesort of misshap ie: the injector as i will call him/her was to suffer from a sudden stroke or other medical flaw they could fall and inject themself with the needle causing their demise , but i for one have to admit this would be irony at not its funniest but quite humerous.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 2 points

The needle goes blunt, and so would be more painful after it has been used.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -2 points

if you were the one giving the needle, would you rather it be clean or dirty?
i wouldnt want to have to handle a needle thats been used several times already. besides they go blunt/

Added 6 years ago by guest, 0 points

Someone's gotta make a buck here or there.... democracy at work - Lev

Added 6 years ago by guest, 2 points

50.

Olber's Paradox

If the universe is infinite, the why cdont we see the stars in distant ga;xies as our own, technically we should not see and darkness. like in the center of a white forect; all you can see is white as everything is white, no other colours can be seen due to the nature of the surroundings!

-4 points - added 1 year ago by guest - 2 comments

Comments:

Infinite and dense with stars are two different things. Perhaps the universe is infinite, but the stars are not.

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

Perhaps light has not yet traversed infinity to reach us yet or perhaps the universe is indeed not infinite

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

51.

In order to be free, we created laws that prevented us from being free

-4 points - added 3 years ago by guest - 3 comments

Comments:

We created laws so freedom was peaceful and enjoyable instead of everyone going around killing people and robbing.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

Well limits make us not free therefore creating the paradox.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

Free wudnt exsist without limits

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

52.

In order to get somewhere you must first travel half of that distance, but first you must go half of that distance, and even before that you must go half of that distance ,ect.

-4 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 10 comments

Comments:

You are subtracting distance, not dividing it, therefore, you do get closer, but after taking a step in that direction thus making the distance smaller.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Assuming x = 0.999
10x will be equal to 9.99 NOT 9.999

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

These people must've struggled in math. Lets take a graph of y=x. Slope of 1 and no y intercept. Between the domains 1 and 2, there are an infinite number of domains. These paradoxes are just stupid

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Simple you are bigger than the halfway distance eventually and move more than it

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

Actually, this is one of Zeno's Paradoxes. The solution is that, if you wanted to cross said distance in a finite time, you must cross an infinite amount of distances in a finite time which is considered impossible.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

You can get close enough...

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

The reason this is not a paradox is because although you must go halfway, you can also go MORE than halfway in one movement.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 0 points

Infinate Series. Not a paradox, though a great math subject.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

well, the paradox is really more like this. pick a number, lets say 1, then divide by 2. so now we have .5. keep doing this until you have the lowest possible number. it isn't possibly because there is no number so small it can not be divided even lower.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

Using "0.999..." to show that the nines go on forever, I will now demonstrate why this is not a paradox.
n = 0.999...
10n =﻿ 9.999... Because you just move every number up one step; with infinite nines you'll still just have nines.
10n-n = 9.999... - 0.999... = 9 = 9n
9n / 9 = n => n = 9/9= 1
1 = n = 0.999...

Added 6 years ago by guest, 0 points

53.

FishScale Paradox

Absolutely mind blowing

-5 points - added 6 months ago by guest -

54.

In the movies, why do the Japanese Kamikaze pilots need to wear helmet when they crashed into the American ships?

-5 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 22 comments

Comments:

BECAUSE IT'S THE MOVIES!!!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

It's a state of mind.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Maby they could be shot wile flying but there helmet saves them

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

this is not a paradox, they wore helmets because it was a pilots dress code...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

Because they are like "we will win"

Added 2 years ago by guest, -4 points

Just in case they will live! ;)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

because the pilots want to look good before they die.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

So they don't die from lack of oxygen when they are flying to their targets.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 6 points

because they want to protect their nice hair

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

Because they secretly don't want to die

Added 2 years ago by guest, -3 points

to look cool

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

well... if the pilot got shot in the head mid flight, it would kinda ruin his suicidal plans

Added 3 years ago by guest, 11 points

Added to the last comment, they needed to reach their targets in the first place, so the helmets prevented them from dying via gunfire.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

Kamikaze pilots wear fur helmets because the higher you go up the colder it is

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

SOLUTION: Where's the paradox?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 8 points

because they have a less fashion sense?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 7 points

Simple, because if they get seriously injured on their head before they hit a boat, they can't steer the ship towards it, since, he is incapitated/unconscious/dead.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 2 points

safety first

Added 4 years ago by guest, 13 points

how about if they get shot down before hitting the ship, he wants to increase his chances of surviving the fall so he can go back and try again

So that the brain-washing headphones would stay on during the entire flight...?

Added 6 years ago by guest, 5 points

So that the helmet would add more damage to the ships

Added 6 years ago by guest, 5 points

55.

can a man die the pool of eternal life?

-6 points - added 5 years ago by guest - 11 comments

Comments:

Yes. There is no such thing as eternal life. once you are born you are dying.
If u think about it, death is eternal life.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

Yes, he can die. Once you drink from the pool of eternal life, you cannot die. Drowning is the filling of the LUNGS with liquid from which oxygen cannot be obtained for the body. This causes death. Therefore he CAN drown if his lungs fill and he suffocates before he manages to INGEST the water.

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

ANSWER: Yes. Man is human. Humans die. The only thing that has eternal life in the question is the pool itself.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

is there any proof of an eternal life pool???? until we have proof we will never know

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

if he drowns

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

there is no such thing as a pool of eternal life... unless you live in Olympus

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

There is no pool of eternal life

Added 3 years ago by guest, 0 points

Well no he can not drown because when he goes in the water when you drown you digest a lot of water but in this case your in enteral life water so you digest it and your immortal so the first gulp he drinks he's immortal and so he lives forever tada solved

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Well... yes and no. In most myths, you must drink the water in the Fountain of Youth to attain eternal life, so by definiton, if the man drowned, he died via water in his lungs blocking the body's ability to breathe, and yes he would die. However, the man had ingested the water, so, in order for the man to live, the effects would have to take place posthumously (after death). If the effects are cut off after the death of the drinker then the man would indeed die, but if the drinker could be affected after death, he/she could indeed drown, then come back to life eternal.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

depend on how stupid the man was

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

It depends. (a lot of things do) If the effects of eternal life are instant then no. But if they take effect over time yes. Then there is the variable of what's in the pool, how deep it is , can he swim,etc. So there are three different possibilities . 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 3 points

56.

To kill death.

What would happen? If death dies the all death stop but then death couldn't die so like WTF?!

-8 points - added 2 years ago by guest - 4 comments

Comments:

Death ISN'T a physical object or being. It's a state of life. not a creation of life itself

Added 10 months ago by guest, 0 points

Ummmmmmm? Death isn't.

Added 1 year ago by guest, -2 points

Death would still be dead because if you kill him then no one can die from THAT POINT ON. He died before that so he is still dead.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

Then comes the apocalypse

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

57.

The wise saying goes like this” If at first you don’t succeed, try again until you do.”

Obviously the guy who came up with this saying never tried Sky diving!

-8 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 5 comments

Comments:

I guess he wasn't trying to put real paradoxes on this website either.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 6 points

Or unless you work in the bomb defusal team...

Added 4 years ago by guest, 13 points

so basically, the more times you fail, the more chances you have of getting it right. NOT

Added 5 years ago by guest, -4 points

Maybe he was a minesweeper... a very lucky one... but then he was also a sadist wanting people to suffer ? -Lev

59.

Why does Superman, who can stop bullets with his chest, ducks when the gun is thrown at him?

-10 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 15 comments

Comments:

because the actor playing him can't get hit by the gun without getting hurt. the bullets are simply blanks, but the gun is for real. I agree, though. It would be better if he didn't duck, for the purposes of the movie.

Added 2 months ago by guest, 0 points

Just read one of these comments that said "He can't die, but he can feel pain".... Really? In superman returns, not only did he walk towards someone that was shooting a Gatling gun at him, he was shoot right in the eye and didn't even blink. I don't think a gun being thrown at him would have hurt him any.

Added 7 months ago by guest, 1 point

Because he wants to

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

reaction

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

His only con is that he doesn't think

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

This isnt a paradox...

Added 3 years ago by guest, 6 points

He can't die, but he can feel pain.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Because while Superman is invulnerable to most everything, the actor portraying him is not.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 23 points

This isn't a paradox.

Added 5 years ago by guest, 4 points

Just because it's funny, DC Comics is a Tautology. "DC" stands for "Detective Comics", so why do people say comics twice?

Added 5 years ago by guest, 1 point

Superman wasn't created by Stan Lee and isn't even apart of the Marvel Universe. He was created in 1938 by Jerry Siegel who wrote for DC Comics...

Added 5 years ago by guest, -5 points

Human stimulus, to dodge things thrown at him????

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

maybe he suffers from some sort of metallophobia as well as his debatable incoherent weakness to kryptonite ... i do have a love for marvel but but superman isnt stan lee's best work (though definetly a classic)

Added 5 years ago by guest, -8 points

Is the gun made of kryptonite ? -Lev

Added 6 years ago by guest, -4 points

because gun is bigger than bullet :P:P

Added 6 years ago by guest, -2 points

60.

Good cannot exist without evil and vice versa

One cannot be defined without the other e.g. you can only define up in comparison to down.

-11 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 13 comments

Comments:

that is kinda the definition of Ying Yang

Added 9 months ago by guest, 1 point

if evil doesn't exist then good would be considered normal and not good, so "good" there fore would not exist

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Evil is the absence of good.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

To the person that said neutrality exists, neutrality tends to be evil in and of itself. If someone is about to be shot and you are indifferent and do nothing then you have committed an act of evil by not attempting to save another's life.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

For starters, good and bad is down to perspective. But, there's always neutrality - you don't have to be good or bad, just indifferent

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

This paradox is just a debate of whether humans are the only ones who perceive good and evil. After all we did invent the words good and bad, and they are indeed defined by their opposites, yet, good and evil are just matters of opinion. Example: Hitler thought that he was cleansing the world while everyone else thought he was a maniac.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

As Shakespeare said, "There is no good or bad, thinking makes it so." It's just a comparison of opposites.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

That isn't a paradox but it is true. Cold can't exist without warm, dark can't exist with out light, even compassion and love can't exist with out selfishness and hate. Everything we are is based on hate. We shouldn't try to eliminate all the evil from the universe , because then there would be no good at all there would just be. Sometimes this balance changes , but with out change... Reality would't exist either. Oh, and I'm 12 and lonely... And mexican... still fun figuring this stuff out by my self.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 4 points

There must be an opposition in all things.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 5 points

Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. Evil works the same way. Evil is only the absence of good.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 5 points

evil and good are made up terms... dont take it literaly anyway oxford diction states eveil is the oposite of what you find moral and vice versa

Added 5 years ago by guest, 1 point

evil is definitely not the absence of good. A simple example would be walking down the street and seeing a neighbor. You could A) do the nice thing and say hi, maybe a conversation, offer to then help mow his lawn. B) keep on walking (the absence of good) or C) pick up a rock and throw it at him . So doing B is in a way the absence of both. Evil is not absence of good. Is good the absence of evil then if you go by the previous statement?

Added 6 years ago by guest, 2 points

pretty sure that evil is the absence, not the opposite, of good.

Added 6 years ago by guest, 0 points

61.

Banks always charge interest on the amount of money that is overdrawn in your account.

Where do they think the money to pay the interest will come from? If you have the money, wouldn’t it be true to say that you would have used the cash already?

-11 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 2 comments

Comments:

I always like to use an anecdote in this circumstance: If we were both on a deserted island and you had the only money on the island, let's say a $5 bill, and I want to borrow this money, but you say you want interest to be paid on it. How do you pay interest when there is a finite amount of money to begin with? Obviously there is the possibility to print more money in our economy, but that devalues the currency if it's over-printed. The current debt crisis is due to banks constantly charging interest when technically it shouldn't exist, each year the economy gets worse because the banks are greedy. Eventually we'll hit a global collapse, because right now, even if the US sold every item in the entire country, they wouldn't come close to paying off their debt. Mark my words, there'll be a major overhaul of the banking system in the coming decades.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 4 points

Banks are stupid to begin with. The reason there is so much debt is because if you borrow money, you owe that amount back PLUS interest. There is always interest. They're always getting more money back than they loaned. Which is why the world is in an economic crisis.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

62.

Can you dream within a dream?

And if so, would you be able to dream within that one? Could this lead to a never ending series of dreams within dreams?

-12 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 28 comments

Comments:

i like sleeping very much

Added 8 months ago by guest, 1 point

Maybe

Added 1 year ago by guest, -3 points

I've dreamed within a dream once

Added 1 year ago by guest, 3 points

i dreamed within a dream once

Added 1 year ago by guest, 5 points

yes i have done it

Added 2 years ago by guest, 4 points

Inception

Added 2 years ago by guest, 5 points

if you can master yourself while in a lucid dream, the you can dream within a dream.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I've dreamed within dreams before. It's really disorienting. It also happens all the time in movies. In the movie Hugo, he dreams about the fire that killed his dad but when he "wakes up" he's in a dream where he turns itno an atomaton

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

You would eventually enter limbo

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

yes i have done this before

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Thats like looking into a mirror that and seeing the mirror behind it infinately

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

I guess it is possible (mabye?)

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

I did it once.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

I did it once...

Added 3 years ago by guest, -3 points

Actually you can't have a dream within a dream. Instead you could simply dream that you fall asleep and wake up but simply what occurs is the dream scape changes. Dreams are made of memory's put together by your subconscious mind. There is no secondary level in the Dream scape

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

Yes. And I have done so before. It was weird.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

One word: inception

Added 3 years ago by ThatEpicGamer, 13 points

You ever seen those tv shows where they just keep waking up, dream after dream until finally in reality? Yeah, you can have a dream in a dream. I've had one. It was weird. I had a dream that I was dreaming about telling my friend I had a dream inside of a dream in which I told her about the dream inside the dream...

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

I have! No lie it is weird feeling!

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

Maybe that is just what life is?

Added 3 years ago by guest, 1 point

dream on

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

A dream within a dream?
INCEPTION!

Added 4 years ago by guest, 19 points

I don't know about never ending series of dreams within dreams. But I have had up to 5 dreams within each other! usually they were all quite simple dreams!

Added 5 years ago by guest, 0 points

According to Edgar Allen POE, "Is all that we see or seem, but A DREAM WITHIN A DREAM"!

Added 5 years ago by guest, -4 points

PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY..U CAN PERCEIVE JUST A SIMPLE ROPE AS SNAKE ESP AT NIGHT. BUT WITH TORCH LIGHT=REASON YOU CAN DECIDE WHAT IS REAL

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

I've had dreams in my dreams

Added 5 years ago by guest, 1 point

Watch the new movie called "Inception"

Added 5 years ago by guest, 3 points

Perception is reality

Added 5 years ago by guest, -3 points

63.

Scientists say that Aids comes from monkeys and is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluid.

How did it spread from monkeys to man???? Going back to the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution…..?!

-12 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 7 comments

Comments:

monkeys bite people

Added 1 year ago by guest, -1 points

How is this a paradox?!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 8 points

A major theory (and the one I buy into most) is that the explorers and settlers of Africa (because humanity is thought to originate around the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) consumed monkeys and got the blood into open cuts and sores on their hands and faces (which is inevitable with their nonexistent medical knowledge).

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Some people dont care about race ;)

Added 5 years ago by guest, 6 points

wrong. AIDs was created at Portland down in britain. The myth comes from it being code-named Green Monkey Desease.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -4 points

It got to man through bodily fluid, yes. Evidence proves that very primitive humans would use monkey blood in ceremonial drinks and food. The virus AIDs evolved and became effective towards humans.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -3 points

Some things are better left unknown.

Added 6 years ago by guest, 9 points

64.

The logic of Catch-22

-14 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 2 comments

Comments:

The logic of a catch-22/paradox isn't a paradox.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

A catch-22 is a logical conundrum in which a person is trapped no matter what they do. So, its logic reasons of a so-called "paradox." The logic of paradox is a logical conundrum in which a person is trapped no matter what they do.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

65.

They say the end of the world will come one day. Ok I can accept this.

Which day??? +0 GMT or EST time?

-14 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 9 comments

Comments:

To the person who deserts would turn to snow lands and snow lands into deserts that is a paradox

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Next monday at 9:00

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

We will all die before any universe or galaxy collides with us. The sun is a star meaning it will soon expand and burn us all. And the moon is slowly leaving earths orbit and will soon cause earth's axis to go crazy and turn deserts into snow lands and vice versa.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Hey Guess what NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

to the person who said timey-wimey stuff... Doctor Who! I got you.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 5 points

To the person who said that the galaxy that's going to collide with ours in 2 million years: The galaxy you're referring to is the Andromeda galaxy and it's going to happen in the next 4.5-5 billion years, not 2 million. The collision would take place over hundreds of millions to a billion years, and unless we chance upon the unlikely event of colliding with another star in the Andromeda galaxy, the collision won't have a severe side effect, other than the very nice light shows and pictures you'll have of the changing skies (Imagine the significant changes in the night sky as you go through your immortal life.)

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

Added 4 years ago by guest, 10 points

I like the comment below , and I agree " time doesn't exist " but actually the galaxy right next to us is going to combine with ours, destroying the earth in the process. It will happen in 2 million years . I'm going to become immortal so I actually have to worry about that. Sucks for me... :/

Added 4 years ago by guest, 0 points

this isnt a paradox and time doesnt exist as we percieve it so the likely hood of a cosmos comforming to our misguided counter is very low
i dont know which day ... or why you would post this on a paradox thread dumbo :@

Added 5 years ago by guest, -1 points

66.

Researches show that 1 out of 4 people suffer from a mental ailment of some sorts.

Think about this, you have 3 normal friends and you are the 4th person, so are you the crazy one?

-14 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 13 comments

Comments:

1 out 4 suffer from it. The other 3 are enjoying it!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 11 points

Researchers say that for an entire population, not a small sample, in fact you need at least 30 samples to assume that a sample is even normally distributed, because in such a small sample of people it is very possible you're all suffering from a mental ailment. And even if you are the crazy person, how would you be able to see the other 3 as normal, if you're craziness thinks they're normal to you then that would mean they're all crazy as well.

Added 2 years ago by guest, -1 points

And now consider of you and 2 other normal men so you are not the 4th person so you are not crazy.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

how can the researchers be sure they're not crazy as well? And if they were tested then who tested the one that tested the tested? It's an endless cycle of "who's crazy and who isn't?" because we all might or might not be crazy in our own way since we all have different perspectives and cannot know what another being thinks or feels completely.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 5 points

maybe you are all normal, and there are two crazy people somewhere else

Added 4 years ago by guest, 2 points

We're all the crazy ones. Is that bad?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 3 points

mental ailment is a umbrella term

Added 5 years ago by guest, -5 points

I think there's a theory going against that. I believe all statements of this sort to be false because you can take 4 people out of a crowd that you are CERTAIN have no mental disorder. Therefore, none of the four would prove this fact.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

2 out of 4 is the equivalent of 1 out of 2.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -3 points

You are picking 4 people, the researchers took a random sample.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -4 points

THIS IS NOT A PARADOX!
everybody is minorly insane but this phrase doesnt mean you are the crazy one;
and i qoute "Think about this, you have 3 normal friends and you are the 4th person, so are you the crazy one?" so called normal people can be insane to becuase being normal (boring) and nothing else is a mental disorder.

Added 5 years ago by guest, -2 points

Does that include insanity wards in hospitals... ??? -Lev

Added 6 years ago by guest, -2 points

I think the count is low - should be 2 out of 4

Added 6 years ago by guest, 1 point

67.

They say evolution adapt our body according to the environment.

Why does the catfish need over 27,000 taste buds??? What is so tasty at the bottom of the pond?

-16 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 3 comments

Comments:

Something we don't now about...yet...

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

i was gonna say the comment above me but he/she beat me to it , anyway this isnt a paradox

Added 5 years ago by guest, 5 points

It's a sensory organ used to analyse its surroundings.
obviously....

Added 6 years ago by guest, 2 points

68.

How come glue in a tube does not stick on the tube itself?

-18 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 11 comments

Comments:

because it is not glue

Added 1 year ago by guest, 2 points

The glue is still wet inside of the tube. You can also never get every single bit of glue from the inside so it does actually stick. If it dries on the inside it also sticks. THIS IS NOT A PARADOX!!!!!!

Added 2 years ago by guest, 2 points

Something that the tube is made out of stops the glue from sticking to the tube. Simple. : P

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

specific linings

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

Try to stick any thing metal with an another thing with any glue
By the way this paradox confused me at first
Good on

Added 3 years ago by guest, -2 points

Black Magic

Added 3 years ago by guest, 3 points

Best paradox yet.
Thank you Josephling67.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -12 points

It is not because of air it is because of the moisture in the air which causes glue to harden.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -5 points

Really?

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

This is a horrible paradox. Its because the glue is not exposed to air in the tube. Therefore it does not harden or stick.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -3 points

Because it stays wet in the tube...

Added 6 years ago by guest, -7 points

69.

Why soap bubbles are always clear regardless of the color of the soap?

-19 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 4 comments

Comments:

because LOGIC

Added 2 years ago by guest, 3 points

this aint paradox

Added 3 years ago by guest, 2 points

the bubble is so thin that the color of the soap is transparent in the bubble.

Added 3 years ago by guest, -1 points

Very thin film of soap renders it clear.

Added 6 years ago by guest, -2 points

70.

You have a Roasted Almond candy bar. Why does the wrapper say it may contain traces of almonds?

-21 points - added 6 years ago by guest - 7 comments

Comments:

because it's the law to have a nut allergy sign on a wrapper even it it's plain obvious.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 7 points

the creator of that bar is stupider than mr bean
hey by the way

Added 2 years ago by guest, 1 point

because the creator does not know that almonds contain almonds

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

Just think about it. These are paradoxes.

Added 3 years ago by guest, 4 points

This is starting to get irritating. THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE NOT PARADOXES!

Added 3 years ago by guest, 16 points

umm.... artificial almonds... duh

Added 4 years ago by guest, 1 point

Legalities

Added 5 years ago by guest, 5 points

71.

Isaac Newton came up with the concept of gravity when an apple fell on his head.

How come nobody ever ask what happened to the apple? If the apple was so important, why didn’t anyone tired to preserve that legendary apple?

-21 points - added 7 years ago by josephling67 - 14 comments

Comments:

because it didn't happen

Added 1 year ago by guest, 1 point

How come most of these weren't actually paradoxes?

Added 2 years ago by guest, 16 points

It didn't fall on his head.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 0 points

I ate it for breakfast.

Added 2 years ago by guest, 12 points

Because what the object does is more important than the object itself.